tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26005383363857873082018-02-09T14:47:17.553-06:00Why Do I Own This?Analysis of the good, bad, and embarrassing movies from my personal collection.Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.comBlogger338125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-78636186473244984782018-02-09T14:46:00.001-06:002018-02-09T14:47:17.628-06:00For Better or Worse, George Lucas Didn't Have to Answer to Anyone<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-small;"><b>*Notes: I refer to George Lucas basically creating the first six <i>Star Wars </i>films entirely by himself. Of course, this isn't true as hundreds of people, including other directors and writers, created the films. My main point is that he had total creative control over the series and could change anything he wanted.&nbsp;</b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-small;"><b>Also, while I posit that it might be better if Lucas had not sold to Disney, overall, I am still optimistic about the future of <i>Star Wars </i>because, as a true fan, I think that more <i>Star Wars </i>is ultimately better than no <i>Star Wars</i>...for now.</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-149YJAHvUoA/Wn4Ipi6kl-I/AAAAAAAAEAg/mITBCJQw9B46l5Ut4ytk3ogOc-rGaOyQACLcBGAs/s1600/lucas1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="536" data-original-width="1024" height="334" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-149YJAHvUoA/Wn4Ipi6kl-I/AAAAAAAAEAg/mITBCJQw9B46l5Ut4ytk3ogOc-rGaOyQACLcBGAs/s640/lucas1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">“I think the fans are going to love it. It’s very much the kind of movie they’ve been looking for.” This was George Lucas’s response to <i>The Force Awakens</i>, and after seeing both that film and <i>The Last Jedi</i>, two things have occurred to me in regards to that quote. One, the new <i>Star Wars </i>films are essentially fan films, made by fans attempting to give the fans what they want. And two, I wish Lucas had never sold <i>Star Wars </i>to Disney. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">That quote explains exactly why I have issues with the new movies. They were made in an effort to give the fans what they want. The problem is what fans want isn’t necessarily good for the film, not to mention that <i>Star Wars </i>fans are notoriously divided about what they like in the series. Most of all, fans are meant to wait for new material, not dictate it. This is why George Lucas should have held onto <i>Star Wars</i>. Like it or not, what he made was <i>Star Wars</i>. He told the stories he wanted to tell how he wanted to tell them, and he did not seem to care about fan feedback. Lucas didn’t create perfect films (he obviously agrees with this since he had a habit of going back and altering the original films), but he made the films he wanted to make. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It feels like Disney is just placating fans, and plenty of people seem fine with it. But I’m disappointed. My biggest problem (which is likely never to be fixed) is that these new films do not feel like <i>Star Wars </i>films. Sure, they look and sound like <i>Star Wars </i>movies, but something is missing. I cannot point to anything specific aside from the fact that Lucas is not involved. Without Lucas, these are fan films, and fan films, while at times impressive, are never as good as the real thing. That’s not likely to change, and I’ll have to accept that. But part of me wishes Lucas had never sold to Disney. Part of me wishes the series stopped for good after the prequels. I can’t believe I even partially feel that way, but <i>The Last Jedi </i>has really left me disappointed with this series. <i>Star Wars </i>was still sacred to me before the new films, and now it’s quickly turning into just another bloated franchise.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">As I pointed out in my previous articles, I did not think that <i>The Last Jedi </i>took <i>Star Wars </i>in a new direction. I wish it had, but I saw far too many similarities to <i>Empire </i>and <i>Return of the Jedi</i> to consider it a very original entry in the series. I don’t blame writer/director Rian Johnson completely for this. It seems to me that he was also disappointed with <i>The Force Awakens</i>, which is why he dismissed so much of it while also speeding through the inevitable retreads of <i>Empire </i>and <i>Return of the Jedi</i>. For doing this, Disney is giving him his own trilogy, which I look forward to since he won’t be beholden to anyone but himself. This situation is exactly what’s wrong with Disney’s approach to the series.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Lucas had total control over the series. Of course, total control leads to a few issues. Lucas obviously didn’t do everything by himself, but he was the final decision-maker, and he did not have to answer to anyone. That led to Jar Jar Binks and some truly abysmal romantic dialogue, but it also led to some amazing lightsaber action and a totally fulfilling character arc for Obi-Wan Kenobi, among other things. It led to a singular vision for the series. Disney threw that out the window when they decided to hire different directors for each film, but there is hope. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Disney saw something in Rian Johnson, but it seems like they also realized that he messed with the direction of the core films. How else do you explain giving Johnson his own trilogy while also handing <i>Episode IX </i>back to J. J. Abrams? It’s possible that they regret not having Abrams write and direct the entire trilogy. At this point, I wish they had. Sure, it’s likely that Abrams would have continued on the rehash path he started, but at least it would have been consistent. Now that he’s back in charge, we might see the mysteries and plots abandoned by Johnson revisited. If that’s the case, then this is going to end up being a sloppy trilogy. (And that’s how I will refer to it: there’s the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy, and the sloppy trilogy.)<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This is something you never had to worry about with Lucas’s films. If a mystery was set up in the original trilogy, it was explained. And everything you still had questions about was explained in the prequels. The Lucas films may have their inconsistencies, but at least he never set up a bunch of mysteries, and then handed off the next film to someone else.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Perhaps the biggest problem is that the story wranglers at Disney obviously did not come up with a master plan for all these writer/directors-for-hire. Lucas took six films to tell the complete story of Darth Vader. Where do you go from there? How do these new films fit into that aside from his children and his grandchild still being around? And if we are moving on from <i>Star Wars </i>being about Skywalkers primarily, then what is the overall story arc for the new trilogy? Does anyone even know?<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">My biggest concern is Disney. Lucas may have been all about toys and allowing people to create new <i>Star Wars </i>books, games, cartoons, etc. But it was all separate from the core movies. In other words, you could ignore all the side stuff if you wanted, or you could take a deep dive in the expanded universe for more <i>Star Wars</i>. How long before Disney makes it seem like a requirement to play the games, read the books, and watch the cartoons? This already happened on a minor scale with C-3P0’s stupid red arm in <i>Force Awakens</i>. He mentions the arm, but it’s dismissed and never explained...unless you read a comic book that explains it. It’s fine if there are books and whatnot that fill in the blanks between <i>Jedi </i>and <i>Force Awakens</i>, but to point out some stupid little detail in a movie in the hopes of selling a few comic books is distracting, stupid, and troubling. It starts with a red arm, but it might lead to an entire character’s fate being left to some other media you have to buy. Lucas would create extra characters just to make toys of them, sure, but it wasn’t as obvious and/or distracting as the red arm. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>The Last Jedi </i>didn’t introduce any red arm nonsense, but by abandoning so many mysteries, it did leave the door open for major story details to be hashed out in other places. Is there going to be a Snoke comic book origin? Will the Knights of Ren be explained in a video game? If so, then fuck Disney. Also, fuck me for being stupid enough to read that comic book and play that videogame. Lucas allowed you to dork out if you wanted to; Disney might be making it a requirement. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Finally, Lucas being a one man show meant something else: there were only so many movies he could make. Since he was unwilling to let other people completely take over new films, he only made one at a time. And he took his time. Each release was special and exciting. Now, we’re looking at a yearly <i>Star Wars </i>movie forever. How long before this turns into Marvel fatigue? Sure, Marvel is chugging along just fine, but personally, I haven’t felt that need to watch the last four or five Marvel movies in the theater because it’s all getting too familiar or convoluted. Can I watch <i>Thor: Ragnarok </i>if I haven’t watched <i>Doctor Strange</i>? It feels like homework. Is this going to happen to <i>Star Wars</i>? I sincerely hope not. But one thing’s for sure, if George Lucas was still in charge, this isn’t something I would have to worry about. There probably would never have been another <i>Star Wars </i>movie if that was the case, but right now that seems better. Too much of a good thing is can be bad. Too much of a mediocre thing is much worse.</span></div><o:p></o:p>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-49329788103102166112018-02-01T12:07:00.001-06:002018-02-01T12:07:42.038-06:00You Have to Kill (and Apparently Copy) the Past to Move on in the "Star Wars" Universe<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9ZcRSFpOJkA/WnNWtzplURI/AAAAAAAAD_4/GwZ4Mls8PREn9_aWCUgzZ83W8oDo983nQCLcBGAs/s1600/lj6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="671" data-original-width="1600" height="268" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9ZcRSFpOJkA/WnNWtzplURI/AAAAAAAAD_4/GwZ4Mls8PREn9_aWCUgzZ83W8oDo983nQCLcBGAs/s640/lj6.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">In my previous article, I went into exhaustive detail about my mostly negative opinion of <i>The Last Jedi</i>. One of those issues concerns Kylo Ren’s line: “Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.” I have no issue with this line from a story standpoint as it works for Kylo Ren’s motivation for many of his actions. I take issue with people pointing to this line as a defense of the plot of the film both on the surface level and on a meta level.</span></div><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">On the surface, the line about killing the past is used to defend the massive death count of the film. From Snoke and Luke Skywalker to nearly the entire Resistance, the reasoning is that things can’t move on until people die. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">That is a bit ridiculous. First, since when does it make sense to use a line from an unstable villain as an explanation of an entire plot of a film? Kylo Ren is clearly struggling with his actions and uses this line as an excuse for the evil that he does. He feels trapped by the past and the expectations of people older than him. This is why his parents and his current and past master must die. Now, in his eyes, he can become who he is meant to be. I’m okay with that, but that doesn’t mean it should apply to the story overall. It’s okay for a villain to be wrong. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I don’t think Kylo Ren’s line is what writer/director Rian Johnson had in mind as he killed off so many characters. But defenders of the film would have you believe this. Many defenders think that people hate this movie because Snoke is killed off or because Luke dies. I don’t dislike the movie simply because those characters are dead. In fact, I liked that Snoke was killed off (I just wish his character had been fleshed out before his demise). As for Luke, I suppose I wanted a more memorable death (and I think he should have been the last of the old three to be killed off), but his character’s death is not that big of a deal to me. I don’t get why Force-projecting himself is lethal, but whatever. Maybe it’s a rule about using that skill. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The character deaths that bother me are those of the entire Resistance save about twenty people. The argument here is that just like the Jedi have to be reborn so does the Resistance and, per Kylo Ren, you can’t move on from the past until it’s dead. If that is truly why Johnson decided to kill off nearly the entire Resistance, then that is weak storytelling. I know that the point of the Resistance being decimated is to set up the scene at the end showing that a new generation of Force-users and rebels is on the horizon. That would be fine if this was the end of a trilogy and not the second chapter. Where do we go from here? Do the twenty Resistance members just hang out for a decade while all the new younglings hit puberty? And why is no one faithful to the Resistance, anyway? Sure, a lot of planets were destroyed, but so was the weapon capable of destroying said planets. When the Death Star destroyed a planet in <i>A New Hope</i>, it strengthened the resolve of the rebels. They didn’t give up and go home. Not to mention we’re dealing with a generation of people who saw the Empire destroyed. They know that good can conquer evil. Have they really forgotten so soon, and now we need to wait on the stable children to save the day?<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This annoys me because it felt unnecessary for people to need a new event to inspire them to fight evil. There have been plenty. Have we not moved beyond whether or not evil is worth fighting against in this galaxy? I guess not. Fine, but does the Resistance need to be so decimated to prove this? It just seems implausible. The entire Resistance just hangs out together all the time? They don’t have members throughout the galaxy? And I’m not talking about Resistance supporters. I understand that the supporters are the ones who don’t answer the call at the end, leading to the need of a new group of rebels. Once again, fine. But even the old Rebellion didn’t travel all together all the time. There were soldiers and spies working throughout the galaxy. Have they abandoned that game plan? That seems unlikely since it worked for them the last time.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Maybe there are members of the Resistance left throughout the galaxy (how can there not be?), but this film makes it seem like both the entire First Order and the entire Resistance are involved in the chase throughout. And if that wasn’t the case, why didn’t any smaller First Order ships show up to finish the job that the slower main ship could not? And why didn’t any Resistance fighters show up to create a diversion or aid them in any way? As far as this film is concerned, the two groups fighting for control of the entire galaxy are in the same place. Is that the goal of the Resistance? Keep the First Order occupied while the rest of the galaxy minds its own business? <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I know this is becoming a copy of my previous post, so I’ll just finish with this before I move on to the meta issue: you can introduce a new generation into the Resistance without destroying it. Also, maybe have the characters care a little bit about nearly everyone they know dying.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JzHTvE5Vnrg/WnNWsGW54xI/AAAAAAAAD_w/VY6w_cMHZ6YXO_11UH4oO5hW0Ww3Od2LwCLcBGAs/s1600/lj5.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="1200" height="362" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JzHTvE5Vnrg/WnNWsGW54xI/AAAAAAAAD_w/VY6w_cMHZ6YXO_11UH4oO5hW0Ww3Od2LwCLcBGAs/s640/lj5.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Now, onto the more infuriating defense of Kylo Ren’s line. Defenders claim that the killing the past line is in reference to older <i>Star Wars</i> fans unwilling to see the saga go in new directions. This is a weak argument on many levels. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">First, where was this defense back when a large portion of the fanbase hated the prequels? The prequels truly took <i>Star Wars</i>in a new direction. There are similarities, of course, but the two trilogies are wildly different in many ways, and I’m not talking about the use of CG vs. practical effects. I understand why people hate the prequels (I loved them), but no one can claim that they just copied the original trilogy. I’ve said many times before that some people hated the prequels because they weren’t enough like the original trilogy. I don’t think that’s a legitimate complaint. What’s infuriating about people invoking that argument with the new films is the fact that they <i>are</i> like the original trilogy!<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It’s accepted that <i>The Force Awakens</i> is a rehash of <i>A New Hope</i>, but, for some reason, people seem to think that <i>The Last Jedi</i> is a wholly original creation. It’s true that <i>The Last Jedi</i>is not a retread of <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i>; actually, it’s a retread of <i>The Empire Strikes Back</i> <i>and</i> <i>Return of the Jedi</i>. I’m not going to list all of the similarities between <i>Last Jedi</i> and those two original trilogy films, but to prove my point, here are a few. The salt planet is basically Hoth all over again. Snoke is killed much like how Vader killed the Emperor. Rey thinks she can save Kylo Ren just like Luke thought he could save Vader. Luke is now Yoda. Rey abandons her training too early just like Luke did in <i>Empire</i>. There are many more, but I think those major plot points and sequences are evidence enough that <i>The Last Jedi</i> borrows heavily from the original films. So how can you say this film is killing the past when it is copying it? Maybe you have to “copy the past to kill it.”<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I will concede that by lumping in plot elements from <i>Return of the Jedi</i>, <i>The Last Jedi</i> has moved on from the original trilogy. In that way, yes the past is dead. But that’s something I’m looking forward to. My least favorite element of the new films is that they have not gone in a new direction. Now they can. I think that some other characters could have survived to go on the journey, but whatever. We’re moving on, and that’s what I want. People who think fans hate this film because it’s too different from the original trilogy are blind to the fact that it is not different from the old films, and they don’t realize that many fans don’t want to see remakes of the original trilogy. It’s dismissive of actual critiques of the film. To hate this film, according to defenders, is to hate change. That is not the case.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The meta argument is mainly annoying because fans use it to claim that this film has broken new ground in the <i>Star Wars</i>universe. New powers have been revealed. The big bad villain is dead already. Random stable kids can be Jedi. The Jedi don’t have to follow the old rules, etc. But that is simply not the case with this film. There are new powers on display here, but force projecting and surviving exposure in outer space does not upend the Force as a whole. And the claim that only certain families can produce Force users was never a rule of the old movies. It’s made very clear that the Force is within everyone, but some people, the Jedi and Sith, are able to harness that power. Nothing was stated about particular bloodlines being the only ones to do this. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This brings to mind two other lines in the film used often to defend it: “This is not going to go the way you think” and “It’s time for the Jedi to end.” A very changed Luke Skywalker says this. It’s important to defenders of the film that Luke says these lines because people who love this film seem to think people hate it largely because of how Luke was presented. They claim that fans hate the film because it subverted their expectations of what <i>Star Wars</i> is supposed to be. Kevin Smith recently singled out the treatment of Luke as an example of why fans hate it. The argument is that people who hate this film hate it because it wasn’t what they were expecting. This is pure bullshit, at least for me. I don’t think it’s in keeping with Luke’s character for him to be where he is in this film, but I could accept it. And as far as subverting expectations, as I’ve stated earlier, this film recreated multiple elements from both the prequels and original trilogy, but for some reason people are ignoring that and claiming it is subverting the tropes of <i>Star Wars</i>. Wow, people cannot accept the possibility that some fans hate this movie because they found flaws in the storytelling (and also, in my case, the action). According to fans of the film, the movie isn’t flawed; the fans just can’t accept it. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fg0Ojcinfw0/WnNWslUBSoI/AAAAAAAAD_0/kC3RW9CdMwoiVGq-5P8MZKhjBmKwkZWiACLcBGAs/s1600/lj7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="1600" height="264" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fg0Ojcinfw0/WnNWslUBSoI/AAAAAAAAD_0/kC3RW9CdMwoiVGq-5P8MZKhjBmKwkZWiACLcBGAs/s640/lj7.png" width="640" /></a></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Once again, I’ll bring up the prequels. When people trash those films (I imagine many who trashed them are the ones defending this film so ardently), the argument can be made that they didn’t like them because they subverted expectations, but no one makes that argument. At least, they didn’t make it as loudly as fans are now. (Of course, who knows what reaction to the prequels would have been like if the internet was like it is now back then.) This is annoying since the prequels actually did subvert expectations. But they also used a lot of CG, introduced concepts people hated (midichlorians), featured some bad dialogue (“Sand…”), and introduced annoying characters (do I even need to name a certain Gungan here?), among other gripes. But it’s okay to hate those films, because those are flaws. Fine. I disagree. Despite some of the flaws in the prequels, I still love those movies for the other elements that I thought were amazing (Obi Wan, the action, the world building, the moments that tie in directly to the original trilogy, etc.). But I understand that some people can hate them. I’ll write an occasional article defending the films, but I try not to dismiss fan hatred completely by saying, “Oh, it didn’t meet your expectations.” People who hate the prequels, and people who hate <i>The Last Jedi</i>, have more reasons than that for their hatred. Why can’t people accept that? And if you love the supposed subverting of expectations in this film so much that you ignore any flaws, why couldn’t you approach the prequels in the same way? Why do the flaws of that film outshine the new places the series went? Even if this movie did go in new places (which I it doesn’t, not that much anyway), that doesn’t excuse the other issues. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It just doesn’t make sense to me why people are bending over backwards to love this film while they were so quick to hate the prequels. Is it really all just about George Lucas? Does CG bother people that much? I’ll delve into this in much more detail in my final article, which will be about George Lucas. But I’ll just state here that the prequels had their faults. I rewatched them recently and cringed many times. But they also had some of my favorite moments in the entire saga. The action alone makes them worth watching, but more than anything they still felt like <i>Star Wars</i> to me. Sure, it was a vastly different <i>Star Wars</i>, but it felt right nonetheless. With <i>The Force Awakens</i> and <i>The Last Jedi</i>, I felt like I was watching fan films with huge budgets, which is what some people want. I thought it might have been what I wanted, but so far, it’s not.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Before this becomes even more of a rant, I’ll finish with this. I wish the people defending this movie were right, and that it was a bold new step in the saga. But it isn’t. Introducing a few new powers doesn’t rewrite the rules of the Force. Something tells me there are still going to be lightsabers and Force pushes and whatnot next time around. So there’s not going to be a new school or Temple in the next film? Fine. No one ever said that was needed. Plus, Rey still took the old Jedi texts, so she obviously doesn’t plan on doing things much differently than the old Jedi. So maybe they won’t call themselves Jedi, and maybe they won’t play by the same rules. Once again, the original trilogy did that already. Luke was too old to start training and there damn sure wasn’t a Temple. You can like or even love <i>The Last Jedi</i>, but don’t claim that you do because it’s something wholly new in the saga. It has elements that are new, but overall, this is still far too similar to the original trilogy. We’ll have to wait for <i>Episode IX</i> to see if they truly want to take <i>Star Wars</i> somewhere new. As for now, it all looked very familiar to me, no matter what the characters say on any level.</span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"></span><o:p></o:p>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-60733928012494330882018-01-28T11:56:00.001-06:002018-01-28T12:02:14.796-06:00I Didn’t Like "The Last Jedi," and I’m Not a Sexist, a Hater, or a Fanboy Who Can’t Handle Star Wars Being Taken in a Bold, New Direction.<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b>*Warning: I cuss quite a bit in this article. Normally, I would edit it out, but it felt right to leave it in this time. So head's up if that sort of thing bothers you.</b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5fqbFvwaKv0/Wm4NnA2YDYI/AAAAAAAAD_E/NHDH32_54j0IaKgDLdRRNg9vZK1I23CpgCLcBGAs/s1600/lj2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="1029" height="336" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5fqbFvwaKv0/Wm4NnA2YDYI/AAAAAAAAD_E/NHDH32_54j0IaKgDLdRRNg9vZK1I23CpgCLcBGAs/s640/lj2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I am a fan, however, and fan is short for fanatic, which is good description of my relationship with <i>Star Wars</i>. I take it quite seriously, so when, halfway through <i>The Last Jedi</i>, I thought to myself, “I fucking hate this,” it caused a disturbance within me. I had never felt that way watching <i>Star Wars</i> (yes, even the prequels). I’m not alone, and there have been plenty of articles and videos stating most if not all of the problems I’m about to list. I still wanted to write about this film, though. Mainly, I wanted to work out for myself why I was so disappointed with this movie. Secondly, I’ve become increasingly annoyed with the dismissal of critics of this movie. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Fans of it seem to think there must be some problem with anyone who didn’t love it as much as them. I honestly do wonder how I could feel so differently from others about this film. It’s as if I watched a completely different movie than they did. So I felt obligated to explain that I don’t hate this movie because of women (strong women have been part of the series since the beginning), subverting tropes of the series (it only speeds them up), changing the Force (new Force powers and details were added in every film), or any other stupid reason that allows people who love the film to dismiss me. I didn’t like it because I found some plot elements weak and/or pointless, I found it lacking (despite a couple of great moments) in action, and it was simply boring too often. This doesn’t make me a hater. It means I didn’t like this movie. There’s no conspiracy or agenda here, and I’m not boycotting the series. I plan on buying this film, for God’s sake. (I may even review it again after I’ve rewatched it, especially if my feelings have changed.) I’m still a fan. I just don’t like this movie very much. It is allowed.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I’m just going to go through every issue I had with the film, every part I liked, and every issue others had that did not bother me. There won’t be much order to this, as I’m just going to write about each issue as I think about it. I will keep it organized into those three categories, though. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Also, I will be bringing up the prequels a few times, as I think a lot of stuff people claim <i>The Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;introduces was actually in the prequels. I loved the prequels, by the way, which makes me sad that I found <i>The Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;disappointing. For years, I’ve been defending the prequels making claims that people who hated them “just wanted to see the original trilogy again” and “don’t like change.” Now since I don’t like <i>The Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;that much, I’m being lumped into that very group as people seem to think the only reason to not like this movie is because we wanted it to be like the other films. That is not the case. And this film is still very derivative of the original trilogy, even if it upends a few things. Anyway, I’ll get to all that. Here goes.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b>*Final note: I reference fan reactions and quotes from Rian Johnson throughout, but I was too lazy to go back and link everything up. The quotes are legitimate, but as for me speaking for people who love the movie, I'm taking that from YouTube debate videos, comments on articles and Facebook, etc. Not exactly stuff I can source properly anyway. Just know that I'm not making up fan reactions.</b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b>SPOILERS</b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Issues I had with <i>The Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;(in no particular order)</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>So much death, so little caring</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I get that this is the darker entry in the trilogy, so things aren’t going to go well for the Resistance. I kind of like that, actually. I mean, the entire resistance can fit on the Falcon at the end! It doesn’t get much darker than that. My issue is that no one seems to care. I like Poe Dameron and his desire to go blow stuff up, but shouldn’t he have at least one scene of remorse for all the pilots that die because of his plans? I know he gets called out for it, but he doesn’t care. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This applies to everyone in the Resistance. Everyone seems very jokey and happy-go-lucky even though almost everyone is dead. Were the other Resistance fighters hired guns? Sure, Rose has her sister that she mourns, but everyone else is unfazed by it all. Ackbar died, for God’s sakes! No moment of silence or something for him?<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Defenders of the film might point out Kylo Ren’s line about having to kill the past to move on, but do we really need to kill off every single Resistance member except the notables to move on? And for those that use his line (which I’ll delve into in my second article about the meta bullshit of this movie), since when does one character’s line, especially that of a villain, justify anything that happens in a movie? Oh, the bad guy said it, so that’s why it happened? What? <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">All I’m asking for is a little emotion. Trash the Ewoks all you want, but who doesn’t get a little teary-eyed when that one Ewok dies and the other Ewok tries to wake him/her up and realizes what happened? At least the Ewoks value life. Poe wants to lead as many people to slaughter as possible and doesn’t think twice about it. But hey, they have to die so the Resistance can be reborn. Because those losers weren’t true believers or something.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Yoda looked weird</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I don’t really have much for this one. I just thought he looked weird. I thought they would have done a better job of making him look like <i>Empire</i>&nbsp;Yoda instead of prequel Yoda. Not that big of a deal, but I’m covering everything. But I have read where others think Yoda looked amazing. Maybe my eyes are messed up...</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Luke’s weird island life</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The milking scene was meant to be funny, I guess? Was that alien enjoying it, by the way? And Luke couldn’t come up with a better method for fishing? That seemed needlessly complex. And what’s with the comic-relief nun-creatures? Why did they just suddenly show up after one of those Rey-Ren talks? <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q-W0B7hBfdg/Wm4NnnfUVxI/AAAAAAAAD_M/KZ4WCLk98O4eQVuWSJerqRGIe5CiouQswCLcBGAs/s1600/lj4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q-W0B7hBfdg/Wm4NnnfUVxI/AAAAAAAAD_M/KZ4WCLk98O4eQVuWSJerqRGIe5CiouQswCLcBGAs/s640/lj4.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><br /></b></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Luke’s attitude</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I’m not going to make some sad fanboy “You ruined Luke!” claim here, but I didn’t buy that Luke would be like this after failing as a teacher. So the Jedi have to end. Fine. But does that mean you fly off and hide while the galaxy is taken over again? And if he didn’t want to be found, why did he leave clues to his location? And how did Max von Sydow have that clue in <i>The Force Awakens</i>? And, and, and, and...so many questions, so few answers. I know that a film doesn’t have to answer every question, but with the two new saga entries, it seems like mysteries were created to be answered in other places, like books, videogames, comics, etc. And that is complete bullshit. For everyone claiming this movie stands on its own, I will point out every unanswered question that was only left unanswered to sell more shit to us. Which brings me to…<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Snoke!</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The treatment of Snoke in this film left me the most conflicted. I liked that they killed him off, but hated the lack of any explanation of his identity. Writer/director Rian Johnson recently explained that it simply didn’t make sense for his film to stop and explain who Snoke is, but that it might be picked up in the next film or elsewhere. If it comes up in <i>Episode IX</i>&nbsp;I’m okay with it. If Snoke is only explained in a video game or book, then it’s Disney cash grab bullshit. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I’m not crazy about Snoke as a character, but the mystery of him kept me interested. You can’t introduce this powerful Force user out of the blue and kill him off without telling us where the hell he came from. Sure, the Emperor was simply there in the original trilogy, but that’s acceptable because we didn’t know what happened before the first film. Then the prequels thoroughly explained where he came from. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">You’re telling me that Snoke, who appears to be very old, just sat out the previous intergalactic war between good and evil, telling himself, “I’ll wait this out and swoop in when it all falls apart”? I don’t care if this guy does have the ability to see in the future and could have stayed in the shadows the whole time because he knew how he could rise to power. Even if that is the case, there has to be at least one scene setting that up at some point. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">And it’s not like <i>The Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;doesn’t have flashbacks. There was a flashback showing what happened between Luke and Kylo Ren. So why not a quick flashback for Snoke. According to Johnson it didn’t make sense for the story of the film, but when a sizable portion of the audience is wondering who the fuck that all powerful being was that just got cut in half, I think it might make a little sense to tell us who he is and how he was able to stay hidden so long. It doesn’t need to be a flashback, even. Vader’s backstory was covered with exposition in <i>A New Hope</i>. Why couldn’t Luke explain who Snoke was to Rey? Maybe cut out that stupid fucking milking scene and have Luke say, “By the way, Rey, let me give you some info about Snoke before you head off to his spaceship.” <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The problem is that they felt the need to bring back the original characters, so they had to have some villain already there since the films have to take place thirty years later. The issue there is that this creates so many questions it seems like we need prequels to these movies. I know they won’t do that, but something tells me there will be plenty of comics, games, and books that fill in these backstories. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Would it have been so bad to have the past thirty years be peaceful? For the First Order to have immediately come to power makes the original trilogy pointless. Why not start <i>Episode VII</i>&nbsp;with the origin of the First Order thirty years later? Snoke could be given an origin. The Luke as a teacher scenes could have been the plot rather than a flashback. You can still have Kylo Ren and Finn and Rey. They would just be introduced differently or later. This way, instead of creating mysteries that would be abandoned, there would be answers <i>and</i>&nbsp;the saga could move forward. Obviously I could flesh that out a bit more, but I’m not trying to start some fan fiction here. I’m just throwing out other possibilities that might have worked a bit better and led to less fan rage.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Instead, we were introduced to needless mysteries by J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson said, “Fuck those mysteries.” I can’t prove that he literally said that, of course, but it’s not hard to imagine him thinking that as he wrote the script. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><u><b>Wait, isn’t that just a complaint about <i>The Force Awakens</i>?</b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Yes, it is. And I think the missteps taken in that film forced Johnson into a corner. He had to try and move away from just copying the original trilogy <i>and</i>&nbsp;he had to try to dismiss the mysteries he had no interest in revealing. But in doing that, he jammed plotlines of <i>Empire</i>&nbsp;and <i>Return of the Jedi</i>&nbsp;into this film to get it over with, which is annoying if you didn’t care for the rehashed elements of <i>Force Awakens</i>. And he did away with the most interesting mysteries of that film, which is also annoying because those of us that hated the rehash plot clung to those mysteries in the hope that they would come up with some great answers in this film. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The lack of a unified vision for the saga</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">And that brings me to <i>Episode IX</i>. So if Johnson was all about doing away with things Abrams introduced, is Abrams just going to re-introduce this stuff in the next film? If so, that’s way too sloppy. I’m fine with different directors taking a crack at <i>Star Wars</i>, but is Kathleen Kennedy and the <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;team not controlling the story? They’re willing to fire directors over creative differences, but they also allow writer/directors to completely abandon story elements of the previous film? That is why I prefer the Lucas films. He was the sole creator, for better or worse. But he had a singular vision, and we didn’t have to wonder from film to film if he was going to abandon or revisit elements from previous films. At least this means all the movies coming forward will be surprising. But some stability would be nice. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">With that in mind, I’m actually interested in Johnson’s announced trilogy that will be separate from the saga. I think Johnson could make some great <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;films if he was given complete control from start to finish, and he didn’t have to work around another writer’s material. Fingers crossed.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>That fucking casino</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This issue has been beaten to death by the haters, so I’ll keep this as brief as I can. This entire sequence was pointless and boring. It was pointless mainly because the mission would not have been necessary if Holdo would have just told Poe the plan (more on that later).<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It was also pointless because Finn and Rose just bumblefuck their way to this casino and immediately get arrested...for a parking violation. They never even speak to the guy they came to see, and instead pick up a stuttering Benicio del Toro, who I assume only stuttered because del Toro insisted on doing something weird to keep himself interested in the character. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This is where lovers of the film will point out that the mission is not the point. The point of the scene, and the entire movie, is that Finn learns about the evil of war, and finally embraces the Resistance. Okay, but didn’t that happen in the last film? Being ordered to kill innocent villagers didn’t convince him? And when he joined the fight in that film, was that not him making a choice? I’ve read arguments that in the first film he was only acting to help Rey, and now he’s acting to help the Resistance. I disagree. When he fights the “Traitor!” trooper, was he only doing that to help Rey? Because that seemed like a moment to me; a moment in which he realized he needed to choose a side.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Finn’s arc aside, the argument is made that the casino sequence was about introducing hope to the stable children, which represented hope in general spreading to a new generation in the galaxy. Again, did this not happen in <i>The Force Awakens</i>? Did no one tell the stable kids about Starkiller Base being destroyed? That wasn’t impressive enough? But a couple of fuck-ups freeing some stupid-looking horse-creatures really gives them the rebellious spirit? And at the end, they’re recreating Luke’s fake-out fight with Kylo Ren. First off, how did they even hear about it? Second, that motivates them, but Starkiller Base blowing up doesn’t? And finally, let’s say Luke is what creates this new...ugh...hope in the children. (By the way, can we retire or at least tone down the theme of hope in <i>Star Wars</i>? I think hope was covered quite a bit in the first six films. Let’s just assume everyone is now very hopeful in the galaxy and move on to something new.) So these kids are in awe of Luke’s confrontation, but that confrontation was a lie. Do they know he was a Force projection, or do they think he’s truly invincible? If they know he’s a Force projection, why do they find that so impressive? And if they believe he’s invincible, then isn’t that creating hope on a lie? Wasn’t Luke’s whole goal to stop making the same mistakes of the old Jedi order?</span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">People also point out that this is the first time <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;has looked into people profiting from war and whatnot, because Finn sees the rich people and DJ points out that one of them provides for both sides. Hate the prequels all you want, but you can’t deny that those films delved into the politics (the Senate debates) and economics (the Kaminoans creating the clone army) of war. Hell, most people complained about the movies being boring for doing so. But now that it happens in a non-Lucas <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;movie, it’s brilliant? Fuck off.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I just don’t see how Finn learning that rich people are bad, deciding to fight for the Resistance (which he seemed to have already done anyway), or learning about war profiteering excuses the fact that he and Rose carried out their mission with the adeptness of Jar Jar Binks. And I certainly don’t see rehashing those three existing elements as an excuse for creating an uninspired, boring setting and sequence.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Maybe I’m wrong, and the casino sequence does represent the soul of the film or whatever. That doesn’t makeit okay that the entire sequence is unforgivably boring. The wannabe Cantina sequence in the casino was a wasted opportunity to add something interesting. Instead, we get bland aliens doing goofy shit, like putting hundreds of coins into BB-8. I can remember damn near every alien from the Cantina scene, but all I can remember from the casino is the weird Justin Theroux cameo and that stupid drunk alien putting coins in BB-8.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Even the freeing of those stupid horse-things was lame. Say what you will about the prequels, but Lucas created great action sequences. The pod racing sequence, for example, is insanely lengthy, but I’m okay with it because it was done so well. The freeing of the horse-goats and the ensuing escape sequence, on the other hand, was forgettable at best. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">So much for being brief, right? I can’t help it. This was the moment in the film that turned me against it. This is the sequence that prompted my “I fucking hate this!” response. There are moments in nearly every <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;movie that I’m not crazy about (the Muppet performance in Jabba’s Palace in <i>Return of the Jedi</i>, the terrible child acting in <i>Menace</i>, the abysmal "love" scenes in <i>Clones</i>, etc.), but I’ve always been able to shrug it off because of all the other awesome stuff going on. I couldn’t do that this time, and that makes me very sad. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Those fucking horse-things</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Yeah, I covered this already, but I wanted to mention them one more time. I just hated their stupid faces...<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RMm3eXaC_eM/Wm4NnJs8guI/AAAAAAAAD_A/fX56e1PLVEEBZycqZsb6fqxYvIGG_dXVACLcBGAs/s1600/lj1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="474" height="426" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RMm3eXaC_eM/Wm4NnJs8guI/AAAAAAAAD_A/fX56e1PLVEEBZycqZsb6fqxYvIGG_dXVACLcBGAs/s640/lj1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>For the first time, a nobody can matter (bullshit!)</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This falls into the defense of the casino sequence, as people point to the stable children as the future of the Jedi. “You don’t have to be a Skywalker to be a hero!” This was never the case, anyway! These films have always been “about” the Skywalker family. Skywalkers have been heroes because it’s been their family story. Even with that, however, plenty of other people have been heroes. Han Solo was just a smuggler. Luke was a farmhand. Anakin was a child slave. Obi-wan and Qui-gon were just Jedi Knights. The whole idea behind the old Jedi system was about nobodies becoming Jedi. Jedi aren’t allowed to have kids, so how could the Force be limited to one family? <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This is what annoys me the most about people defending the film in this way. They take shit that has either never been an issue or has already been established and act like this film broke the mold of <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;and started everything over. I don’t care if you like this movie, but don’t claim you like it because it’s the first “Star Wars” film to do this and that when this and that have already been done in the previous films.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Force projections - AKA the <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;version of the overused mask gag from <i>Mission: Impossible</i></u></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I am very worried about this new power. Hopefully, it can only be done once and then you die or something. Otherwise, every scene from here on out involving a Force user will have the question, “Is he/she really there?” Please let this be a one-off power. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Luke had to die because…</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">...oh yeah, because Ren said so. Sorry, I forgot. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Come to think of it, though, this is in keeping with one of the weakest story elements in the prequels: Padme’s death. In <i>Revenge of the Sith</i>, Padme dies pretty much because the story needed her to. Even the doctor droid couldn’t explain why she was dying, aside from her losing the will to live. I get that Lucas wrote himself into a bit of a corner in that situation, but wouldn’t it have been much more powerful of a scenario if Anakin’s force-choking of her really did lead to her death? I suppose Lucas wanted to leave the guy slightly redeemable, but come on, he was killing younglings minutes earlier in the film! Go for it and have basically murder the love of his life. I know he’s still responsible for her death because she doesn’t want to live after what he has done, but that makes her final moments weak. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The point is that Luke’s mom died seemingly for no reason, so it stands to reason he would die that way too. I’m joking, but that at least makes a little more sense to me.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Holdo refuses to tell Poe the plan</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I mentioned this earlier, but I’ll point it out again because I have yet to hear an argument for her withholding the plan from Poe. Some have pointed out that Poe got demoted or was being punished for his actions. So your plan for dealing with the hothead who always goes off and does whatever he wants is to leave him in the dark, forcing him to go off and do whatever he wants, like stage a mutiny. Good idea, Holdo. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The whole point of the film was to show that the Resistance will stand no matter how much loss they endure, and that will inspire the people</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Again, hasn’t this been covered in previous films? I don’t care about the whole “kill your past” bullshit. It’s ridiculous that the Resistance is down to a couple dozen people. Are the stable children going to be ready for the fight in the next film? I hope not, because using a broom and using a lightsaber are two very different things.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Knights of Ren</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Rian Johnson has said that he didn’t include the Knights of Ren because he would have just killed them off because they would have been Snoke’s guards. Fine, go ahead and kill them. I just want to know who they are. Not having them in this film at all just makes me wonder what the hell they are doing since chasing the Resistance seems to be the only thing that matters to the First Order. Are they all just hanging out somewhere? It’s just another example of something being set up that Johnson didn’t want to pay off. That is lazy storytelling. I’m worrying more and more that <i>Episode IX </i>is going to be a spiritual sequel to <i>The Force Awakens </i>rather than the end of a trilogy. You cannot deny that these two films have lacked overall focus. I guess you can claim that lack of focus is actually a “bold, new” direction for the series. Starting to use your bed as a toilet would be a bold, new direction, too (for most people), but that doesn’t make it a good idea.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Snoke has no peripheral vision</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I’m no Jedi, but if something starts moving next to me on the arm of the chair I’m sitting in, I’ll notice it.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The misplaced humor</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The humor didn’t bother me overall, but it did feel like they were worried about being too dark, so every time something remotely serious happened, a cutesy gag had to follow within a minute. I don’t understand how people who claim this movie works a standalone film can give it a pass for the jarring tonal shifts. Any other movie would get (rightfully) called out on that.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Luke’s chance to be a badass</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Man, when Luke showed up to face down all those Walkers, I thought, “Finally! Grumpy bitch boy Luke is about to redeem himself.” And I expected to see him Force push a Walker down and start a domino effect. But no, he was only projecting himself there. Sigh.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The (mostly) weak action</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I started watching the <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;movies again recently to get out of my <i>Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;funk, and I started with the prequels (I know, blasphemy!). Especially after watching <i>Revenge of the Sith</i>&nbsp;I feel the need to point out that despite whatever issues you have with the plot and acting and whatnot of those films, you cannot deny that George Lucas delivered the action. <i>Revenge</i>&nbsp;has multiple huge, amazing action set pieces, like the opening long take space battle, Count Dooku vs. Obi Wan and Anakin, the General Grievous vs. Kenobi fight, and the showstopper: Obi Wan vs. Anakin. Not to mention multiple smaller action scenes throughout. Some might complain about the use of CG, but I honestly think it holds up. So far, the new <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;movies have failed to hold up to that standard. I’ll give you the throne room fight in <i>Last Jedi</i>, but aside from that the lightsaber action is almost nonexistent. Some of the space battles are okay, but they lack the scale of the prequels. It’s hard to watch <i>Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;and compare it to the prequels and think that the budgets were similar. Lucas puts every penny on the screen. Where did the money go for <i>Last Jedi</i>? Let me guess, they painstakingly created practical costumes for most of the casino patrons that we barely see. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This brings me to my biggest issue: <i>The Last Jedi</i>&nbsp;is a boring film, and that is unacceptable as a <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;fan. Some people love it, and I wish I did. But I do not understand how anyone could consider the majority of this movie entertaining. I love <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;for the mythology it created, and for the awesome sci-fi action. The two new films can’t decide if they want to copy the old films or subvert them, or make a statement about the franchise, or whatever. Along the way, they forgot to make these movies fun to watch. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Do I want an empty action film? No. And I don’t consider the prequels to be empty action. But if you’re going to create subplots that exist only for character development, at least go to the trouble to create some memorable action.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Parts I liked</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Believe it or not, I liked quite a bit of this movie, although I’m leaning more towards overall hate the more I think about it. Hopefully focusing on these elements will get me back to the “like, but had severe issues with it” category.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The beginning space battle</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">An honestly thrilling and tense opening. Heads up, I’m going to be shorter in my praise than my rage. It’s just how I am. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The killing of Snoke</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I hate that they didn’t explain his origin, but I loved that they killed him off. The more I look back to <i>The Force Awakens</i>&nbsp;the more it annoys me that it’s a remake of <i>A New Hope</i>. So I was prepared to sit through a rehash of <i>Empire</i>&nbsp;followed by a rehash of <i>Return of the Jedi</i>. By killing Snoke now, as implausible as it may seem, the story can now go into uncharted territory. I was truly surprised in the moment, which is always welcome, and it opens up the story.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The lightsaber battle</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The ensuing battle after Snoke’s death is easily the highlight of the film. I’m starving for lightsaber action in these films, so it was nice to finally see some great action. Even though it doesn’t make sense to me that the guards would fight after Snoke died… Wouldn’t they just start working for Kylo Ren? Maybe if we had any info at all about Snoke and these guards… Anyway, great sequence.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZXDTLwF8Ktw/Wm4NnjyZiGI/AAAAAAAAD_I/ouQ_N7Xw9_MbO8Qr_Al5NtAOv_wowPP7gCLcBGAs/s1600/lj3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="664" data-original-width="1600" height="264" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZXDTLwF8Ktw/Wm4NnjyZiGI/AAAAAAAAD_I/ouQ_N7Xw9_MbO8Qr_Al5NtAOv_wowPP7gCLcBGAs/s640/lj3.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The hyperspace ram</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I pretty much hate the character of Holdo because she needlessly withholds info, but using a hyperjump as a weapon was badass. That coupled with the lightsaber fight nearly redeem the movie for me...nearly.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Some of the humor</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I didn’t hate the humor in the movie, and I found quite a few moments genuinely funny. I think there is humor in the wrong place at times, but overall this movie is actually funny a few times, whereas other <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;films usually feature cutesy, weak humor.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The surprising nature of the movie</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This goes back to Snoke’s death, but after that moment, I had no idea where this movie was going, and it made the last hour much more interesting than the first hour. Sure, they ended up redoing the Hoth sequence for some fucking reason, but overall all bets were off and anything could happen.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><u><b>The fact that I have no clue what <i>Episode IX</i>&nbsp;will be like</b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This leads us to the next film. Will Abrams revisit element Johnson dismissed? I hope he does a little bit, but one thing’s for sure, he can’t remake <i>Return of the Jedi</i>&nbsp;because Johnson beat him to it. I’m very interested to see where this series goes. It’s just unfortunate that they had to make a weak ass <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;movie to get to that point.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Parts other people hate that didn’t bother me (that much)</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Women</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I believe the sexism involved in some critiques of this film (some dildo even made an edit that removed all the women from the film) is simply a loud, pathetic minority of fans. As mentioned at the beginning, this series has always featured strong women, so I don’t even understand how a fan could be upset with the role of women in this film. That said, it’s still okay to hate the actions of female characters without being sexist. Holdo’s decision to leave Poe in the dark would have annoyed me just as much had she been a man, for example. I only point this out because I don’t like that people who dislike this film sometimes get lumped in with the idiots who are mad because the main character is a woman or that the bad guys are all men (which has also always been the case in the series). Some of us didn’t like the film for legitimate reasons. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Leia’s spacewalk</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I’ve seen this referred to derisively as the <i>Mary Poppins</i>&nbsp;moment, but it didn’t bother me all that much. Aside from issues with surviving in space, I didn’t see what the big deal was. I will say that in light of Carrie Fisher’s death, it would have made much more sense for Leia to die in this moment, especially since her character was very inconsequential this time around. And if the plan is to kill off the main three (Han, Luke, and Leia) one film at a time, why would Leia be the last to go? <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Finn and Rose’s love story</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This could be about Rose’s character in general too, I suppose. Either way, it didn’t bother me that these two fell in love, even though they seem to fall in love simply because they share screen time. What I don’t get is people claiming that Rose steals the film and immediately cements herself as a great <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;hero. I thought she was pretty bland. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The porgs</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Look, ever since the Ewoks, there are going to be animals or aliens that are just there to be cute for the kids. I didn’t mind them.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Phasma</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I’ve never understood the hype of this character. She was given nothing to do in either film, so it doesn’t bother me that she appears to get killed...again. It’s no major loss because aside from being a female trooper with chrome plating, Phasma is a very minor, inconsequential character.<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>The “running out of gas” plan</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It’s a pretty weak plot element, but fine, they’re running out of gas. Why not? It’s fantasy/sci-fi, you can go anywhere you want with it. They needed a ticking clock, and this is what they came up with. Now, whether or not this needed to be a ticking clock movie is another matter...<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Rey becoming badass seemingly overnight</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">...which is why a lot of people have issues with Rey’s sudden abilities. If we’re doing the math, she was with Luke for a day or two. If they didn’t have the running out of gas plot, Rey could have spent much more time there. Either way, it’s unclear how long Luke stayed on Dagobah in <i>Empire</i>, but it definitely didn’t seem like a long time. So if we’re cool with that, we have to be cool with this. Also, Snoke mentions the light side rising to meet the dark which explains it, but as stated before, I don’t believe plot holes can be explained away by villains. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Final thoughts...finally</u></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Okay, I hate this fucking movie. I do. I hate that I hate it, but I do. I plan on buying it (because I’m a stupid nerd) and watching it again, though. Hopefully, I see something different the next time out. As it stands, this is a shitty <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;movie with a handful of decent moments, but at least it sets things up for </span></div><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>Episode IX</i>&nbsp;to be its own film. There’s always...ugh...hope.</span><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-9860195512400367282017-10-25T11:51:00.000-05:002017-10-25T11:51:39.335-05:00Halloween / George Romero Tribute Edition: "Day of the Dead" and "Land of the Dead"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Day of the Dead / Land of the Dead</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GIZsqYJtZOQ/WfC_-E4LtcI/AAAAAAAAD84/oRh46EpDnEoEm4vWS3T43fVXZKHPDaSxgCLcBGAs/s1600/z4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1270" data-original-width="1600" height="508" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GIZsqYJtZOQ/WfC_-E4LtcI/AAAAAAAAD84/oRh46EpDnEoEm4vWS3T43fVXZKHPDaSxgCLcBGAs/s640/z4.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I've been a fan of zombie movies my entire life, so it definitely bummed me out when George Romero passed away back in July. Whenever a filmmaker I like dies, I always revisit their work. With Romero, I knew I had to watch <i>Day of the Dead</i>&nbsp;again since it's my all-time favorite zombie movie. I bought the blu-ray (which looks great, by the way) even though I already have the DVD (it's that cool one with the Bub cover flap); I love this one enough to own it twice. In the documentary on the blu-ray, a producer mentions that Romero had written a much larger (in scope) film, but budget constraints forced him to scale it back. The larger version ended up becoming <i>Land of the Dead</i>&nbsp;(a movie I also own), so I figured this made for a good double feature for a Romero tribute and for Halloween, especially since <i>Night</i>&nbsp;and <i>Dawn</i>&nbsp;get most of the attention when it comes to Romero.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Romero seemed to work best when forced to go small. <i>Night</i>&nbsp;takes place in a single house. <i>Dawn</i>&nbsp;is in a mall. And <i>Day</i>&nbsp;takes place in a cave/storage facility. These small locations allow for more character building, and it frees up the budget to go all out on the makeup and gore. This is why I love <i>Day</i>. It's up there with <i>The Thing</i>&nbsp;for having some of the most disturbing practical effects of all time. The zombies may look more "Thriller" than <i>Walking Dead</i>, and the blood is candy red, but it's still disgusting...and great. The effects in <i>Land</i>&nbsp;are still good (the zombies look much better) and the feast sequence has its moments (the belly button ring being ripped out comes to mind), but there are bits of CG mixed in there, as well. It's not terrible CG, but it foreshadowed its much heavier use in <i>Diary of the Dead</i>. It's unfortunate that Romero couldn't get the budget to go full practical with the blood and guts.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">With Romero, you come for the gore, but stay for the social commentary. Anyone can make a gory movie, but Romero could also make his films socially relevant, funny, disturbing, and philosophical. Something that is lost in many zombie stories today is the treatment of the zombies themselves and what it all means for humanity as a whole. That's not to say a show like <i>The Walking Dead</i>&nbsp;is lacking in the drama department; it isn't. But the focus there is solely on the characters surviving; they never stop to consider the world at large.&nbsp;If they do talk about the world at large, any big thoughts are usually dismissed with an answer along the lines of "Surviving is all that matters now."&nbsp;</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Whereas <i>Day of the Dead</i>&nbsp;has a lengthy scene in the middle of the movie in which&nbsp;John, the seemingly uncaring Jamaican helicopter pilot (greatest character description ever?),&nbsp;questions the whole point of humanity's "progress."&nbsp;There is no action or gore during this scene, yet it's one of my favorite moments in the film. The question, "Why&nbsp;bother figuring out why the zombie apocalypse, or anything at all for that matter, happened?" is asked, and it makes you think&nbsp;beyond the movie itself. John suggests that trying to figure things out might have led God to bring this curse on humanity, so they should give up trying to figure it out and start humanity over from scratch, and just live. It can come across as anti-scientific, but I think it's more about how we can't see the forest for the trees. It also works as a metaphor for enjoying the zombie genre: who cares why it happened, just enjoy the gore and violence. And for whatever reason, all of this being presented with a Jamaican accent makes it even better.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zMFUrrKKqKk/WfC_9xkYxqI/AAAAAAAAD8w/sWy3DQyobmMKW3EXdWcwOLI80aefwOpCACLcBGAs/s1600/z1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zMFUrrKKqKk/WfC_9xkYxqI/AAAAAAAAD8w/sWy3DQyobmMKW3EXdWcwOLI80aefwOpCACLcBGAs/s640/z1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That might seem like way too much thinking for the zombie genre, but&nbsp;Romero's&nbsp;movies in particular were filled with very intentional social commentary concerning race (<i>Night</i>), consumerism (<i>Dawn</i>), militarism and scientific study (<i>Day</i>), and class struggle (<i>Land</i>). That's what makes this genre so great. If it was just gore, it wouldn't be this popular. Whether viewers realize it or not, they're drawn in by those themes.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">More than anything, though, these films are entertaining. I love <i>Day</i>&nbsp;because of how heightened so many of the characters are. Joe&nbsp;Pilato, as the psychotic Rhodes, makes the film. He pretty much screams every line, which makes gems like, "I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein, and I want to know what the&nbsp;fuck&nbsp;you're doing with my time!" Also, he yells "Choke on 'em!" as zombies feast on his entrails. It just doesn't get better than that. Steele and&nbsp;Rickles, equally psychotic, are a highlight, as well. It's&nbsp;overacting&nbsp;to be sure, but it's also plausible that people would get this crazy in that scenario.</span></div><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gg4OJCwG9-k/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gg4OJCwG9-k?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Land</i>&nbsp;doesn't compare to <i>Day</i>&nbsp;in the crazy character department, but it still has some great moments. Dennis&nbsp;Hopper's&nbsp;goofy ruse of "Watch out! Get down quick!" to murder an associate only to find out seconds later it was unnecessary always cracks me up.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Before I move my focus towards <i>Land</i>, however, I feel obligated to just spout off all the other reasons I love <i>Day</i>&nbsp;so much. So here goes, in no attempt of organization. The music: the very&nbsp;80s&nbsp;score might come across as laughable for some, but it fit perfectly for me. I can't explain why, but the score made this feel more like the end of the world than more traditional movie music would have. I might just be crazy, but the music worked completely for me. They call the zombies "dumb&nbsp;fucks" multiple times. Rhodes calls a zombie a "pus&nbsp;fuck." There are plenty of goofy zombies (clown, football player, ballerina), which means these people died while wearing these outfits, which is hilarious to me. Miguel saying, "So&nbsp;fucking&nbsp;what?" That one zombie that steps off the platform too early and falls. The shovel kill. The way&nbsp;Rickles&nbsp;laughs. And finally, the location in general. The cave/storage facility is a real place in Pennsylvania, and I cannot think of a better actual filming location for a zombie movie. Okay, now on to <i>Land</i>.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O7sGE7JHi2o/WfC_99IlpCI/AAAAAAAAD80/qp7wsDj0lGcUZ-FJD5rKSUIodeacq2UWgCLcBGAs/s1600/z3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="666" data-original-width="1200" height="354" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O7sGE7JHi2o/WfC_99IlpCI/AAAAAAAAD80/qp7wsDj0lGcUZ-FJD5rKSUIodeacq2UWgCLcBGAs/s640/z3.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Land of the Dead</i>&nbsp;was something entirely different for Romero. The focus of his series began shifting to the zombies in <i>Day</i>&nbsp;with Bub learning to use a gun by the end. With <i>Land</i>&nbsp;the zombies making their way to the city is as focused on as the human story. The humans began changing more with these two films, too. There have been terrible people in all the movies, but they seem to have taken over in <i>Day</i>&nbsp;and <i>Land</i>. With all the evil humans around, you end up rooting for the zombies not for the gore, but because they seem like better people...even though they eat people.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is why <i>Land </i>deserves a bit more love than it gets. Romero leaned into his social commentary more in this film than any of the other <i>Dead</i>s. By turning the zombies into the heroes of the story, you see humanity in a villainous light. It's a very dark, disturbing message. The film suggests that zombies are the logical next step in evolution. <i>Land </i>was Romero's first zombie movie since <i>Day</i>, and it seems like he returned to the genre because he hated seeing the treatment of zombies. Zombies are mainly used as plot points now, and Romero wanted to make them characters again. He certainly did that in <i>Land</i>.&nbsp;</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The first time I saw <i>Land </i>in the theater I was too amped to see a new Romero movie to give much thought to the treatment of zombies. Rewatching it recently, it was all I could think about. All of the humans truly seem like secondary characters this time around. There are still good and bad humans, but the majority are terrible. Romero ditched any semblance of subtlety this time around and presented humans as openly worse than zombies.&nbsp;</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The lack of subtlety is not a critique. At this point in the Romero universe, any attempt at human decency would have been long gone. The setup of <i>Land </i>is that the rich get to live in luxury condos while the poor live in slums, and it will always be that way. The poor are given the hope that they can get to the top, but it's a lie. This is certainly a thinly veiled (okay, not veiled at all) criticism of capitalism. But I think it's more about where humans would eventually go in a zombie world. I believe this scenario could definitely play out. Of course, this is all based on the idea that an economy would still exist in the zombie apocalypse, and I find that the most implausible aspect of the film. But if money did still matter, <i>Land </i>is a decent prediction of what could happen.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/e88n0b_7wc4/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e88n0b_7wc4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Before I wrap things up, here are my favorite <i>Land </i>moments. The aforementioned Hopper scene. John Leguizamo wanting to become a zombie (mainly because I would be the same way in that scenario; why not see what it's like to be a zombie?). Using fireworks to distract zombies. The Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright cameos. Tom Savini! More goofy zombies; apparently an entire band died in their uniforms.</span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">George Romero may have been known for making (amazing) zombie films, but these movies were always about humanity. The gore is top notch and makes these movies endlessly rewatchable and enjoyable, but the social commentary he inserted increasingly in each film makes them classics in my collection. It's not like Romero's social critiques are all that original or anything (it's not hard to look at consumers as brainless zombies), it's that he knew these films needed something more than gore. If I'm going to watch two hours of anti-human propaganda, then I at least want to see some amazing practical gore. George Romero was more than capable of providing that, and he will be sorely missed.</span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-35896108134483145062017-10-09T21:42:00.000-05:002017-10-09T21:42:10.273-05:00"Blade Runner 2049" - More "Blade Runner" Than "Blade Runner"<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Blade Runner 2049</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eYb5A_Q1BFM/WdwvrinYt3I/AAAAAAAAD78/_xXI2tfeJOs6RVbBH76O22EtN1uRhHfpwCLcBGAs/s1600/br492.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1600" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eYb5A_Q1BFM/WdwvrinYt3I/AAAAAAAAD78/_xXI2tfeJOs6RVbBH76O22EtN1uRhHfpwCLcBGAs/s640/br492.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">(This site is supposed to be about movies I own, but I'm making an exception for this <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>review since I will own it when it is released on blu ray.)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Returning to beloved films from decades ago usually results in disappointment. But thanks to a recent influx of new films that continue the franchise (<i>Star Wars</i>, <i>Alien</i>) rather than reboot it, the results have been a bit more satisfying. Still, revisiting <i>Blade Runner </i>seemed like a bad idea. There's not much to the original film that begs for a sequel. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is the unanswered question of whether Deckard (Harrison Ford) was a replicant. It seems like a sequel featuring Ford would be problematic for that question. Also, the first <i>Blade Runner </i>was not an action movie. It was a moody noir set in a dystopian future. Would Hollywood allow a sequel to be made without turning it into an action film?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Thankfully, the filmmakers (director Denis Villeneuve, producer [original director] Ridley Scott, and writers Hampton Fancher [original] and Michael Green) handled things beautifully. They do not answer the question of Deckard. In fact, they add more to the debate for both sides of the argument. And, more importantly, <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>is nowhere near an action film.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The plot, which I'll be vague about since the studio left it very vague in the promotional materials, is in the same vein as the original, playing out as a simple detective story in a complex, visually stunning setting. While the plot does add plenty of questions to the series and brings up plenty of existential themes concerning humanity and technology, the true appeal of the film is its style.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vpiQ2BTjTDk/Wdwwt6MJXXI/AAAAAAAAD8I/sgqJM0MYdPY5qVP0BGiPAAoxXL8V5BOTgCLcBGAs/s1600/br494.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="1249" height="394" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vpiQ2BTjTDk/Wdwwt6MJXXI/AAAAAAAAD8I/sgqJM0MYdPY5qVP0BGiPAAoxXL8V5BOTgCLcBGAs/s640/br494.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Director Denis Villeneuve (<i>Arrival</i>, <i>Sicario</i>) was the perfect choice to succeed Scott in the director's chair. He has proven himself a master of tension and mood already, so it was great to see him set loose with a large budget in an already richly designed world. I rewatch the original <i>Blade Runner </i>on a yearly basis because of the world of the film. <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>takes that bleak future and turns into perhaps the bleakest future in a film that isn't post-apocalyptic; perhaps it could be described as pre-apocalyptic. It's interesting that such an ugly moral world can be so beautiful. Villeneuve and director of photography Roger Deakins take massive landfills, radioactive cities, and bleak farmlands and turn them into cinematic wonders.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The visuals, which are a perfect blend of CG and practical effects, are amazing on their own, and the nearly oppressive score (which rattled the speakers of my theater regularly) is the finishing touch. A world is only beautiful if you get to spend plenty of time in it, though. This is where critics (and <i>Blade Runner </i>fans) and a typical audience member might differ in opinion. <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>gives you over two and a half hours in its bleak world, with many sequences consisting solely of Ryan Gosling walking slowly. I see that and can't take my eyes away because I want to examine and enjoy every frame of the film. Others might see that and want to yell, "Do something!"&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Perhaps the best way I can describe how interesting I found this arguably "boring" film is this: I went to see this after working a twelve hour night shift. I went to the earliest show I could, which allowed me to get two hours of sleep beforehand. I've done this with other movies and could barely keep my eyes open no matter the type of movie I was watching. Yet with <i>Blade Runner 2049</i>, I didn't so much as yawn a single time. I was truly worried I would fall asleep when I first planned to watch this lengthy film under those conditions. When I walked out of the theater feeling completely awake, I knew I had seen something special.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X7ieglUV0x4/Wdwwt4qUq9I/AAAAAAAAD8M/joim7KK17_wj9mHjf7gQvSnIbtEI7WSpwCLcBGAs/s1600/br495.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="800" height="264" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X7ieglUV0x4/Wdwwt4qUq9I/AAAAAAAAD8M/joim7KK17_wj9mHjf7gQvSnIbtEI7WSpwCLcBGAs/s640/br495.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Although the visuals, pacing, and music were the stars of the film for me, that does not mean the performances were lacking. Gosling is perfectly cast in the lead role. Harrison Ford is fine as the aged Deckard (though it seems like he's just being Harrison Ford instead of the actual characters he's returning too). Jared Leto was oddly zen-like in a villainous role, but he was underused. The standouts are the female performers. Robin Wright turns what could have been a one-note boss character into fully realized character. Sylvia Hoeks provides quiet menace as Leto's muscle. And Ana de Armas gives possibly the best performance as Joi, an AI girlfriend.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">With all of this praise I'm giving <i>Blade Runner 2049</i>, you might think it's obvious that I prefer it to the original film, but I'm not sure yet. My impulse is to declare this the better film, but it will take time to truly tell which film has the more lasting effect. The original <i>Blade Runner </i>didn't catch on for years. So maybe my opinion of this film will change over the years, as well. I doubt it, though. Like most films that I love, my immediate thought as I walked out of the theater was, "I can't wait to see this again." I think my yearly viewings of <i>Blade Runner </i>just became a double feature, and <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>is definitely one of my favorite films of the year.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)</u></b></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Unfortunately, this is probably the last <i>Blade Runner </i>for a while since it's underperforming at the box office, but I'm okay with where it ended. It definitely felt like a few things were set up for future installments, but it didn't end on a cliffhanger or anything. You can imagine where things go from that ending. But I do wonder if they ignored Leto's character at the end in hope of a sequel. Or maybe they introduced that replicant underground group to be expanded upon in the future. Either way, it stands on its own as a great movie.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Gosling was meant to play a Pinocchio-like replicant.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Joi character reminded me of <i>Her</i>&nbsp;quite a bit. It's still an interesting plotline. At times you're watching a robot interact with a hologram. The fact that these two "lifeless" characters make up a big portion of the films says something about the overall question the film posits: What is humanity?</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Man, Los Angeles is bleaker than ever. You can imagine if most people had moved off-world back in 2019 how bad it must be by 2049.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Glad to see Edward James Olmos return, still making that origami.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">So is Deckard a replicant? I think he's human at this point, though I thought he was a replicant after watching the original. It's not the aging that makes me thing he's human; it was the scene with him in the car as it submerged. If he was a replicant, he would have easily gotten out of the handcuffs. Of course, Tyrell could have made him pretty much identical to a human in all aspects if he was capable of making a replicant able to procreate. Perhaps Deckard and Rachel were his replicant Adam and Eve... Okay, maybe Deckard is a replicant after all.&nbsp;</span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-5427034254422106702017-10-04T13:44:00.002-05:002017-10-04T15:13:41.652-05:00The Mixed Bag of Sci-Fi Nostalgia: Star Wars, Alien, and Blade Runner<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">(<i>NewsRadio </i>was originally going to be my next post, but I decided to postpone that and write something a bit more relevant since <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>is coming out this week. <i>NewsRadio </i>is written and will be posted in a week or so.)</b></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXmRmzGI0OA/WdUrr8VTl7I/AAAAAAAAD7Q/S3EbbPG6yeU0ujkMewsCZxbq58S2WE5_ACLcBGAs/s1600/blade_runner_1982.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="502" data-original-width="1200" height="266" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXmRmzGI0OA/WdUrr8VTl7I/AAAAAAAAD7Q/S3EbbPG6yeU0ujkMewsCZxbq58S2WE5_ACLcBGAs/s640/blade_runner_1982.jpg" width="640" /></span></b></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">Nostalgia seems to be fueling the biggest movies and TV shows recently, and that is not going to change anytime soon thanks to the popularity of <i>Star Wars </i>returning to the original trilogy characters. <i>Star Wars </i>didn't start this trend or anything, but the massive success likely led to the greenlighting of new entries in other older properties. I can't help but think that <i>Alien: Covenant </i>was able to be made because of a promise to be more like the original <i>Alien </i>than the recent, divisive <i>Prometheus</i>. And based on the previews of <i>Blade Runner 2049</i>, it looks like the studio provided a huge budget; it's not a stretch to assume this is because of the <i>Star Wars </i>effect. While I love the resurgence of all these films I loved growing up, the nostalgia factor makes it a mixed bag (though I'm crazy optimistic for <i>Blade Runner 2049</i>). So is nostalgia helping or hurting the integrity of these franchises? Let's start with <i>Star Wars</i>.</b></span></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><i>The Force Awakens</i>, many claim, gave the fans what they wanted whereas the prequels gave them what they didn't want. Not to get into a prequel vs. original trilogy debate, but one thing that can be said for the prequels is that they are different. For a lot of fans, that means they're terrible (I happen to hold them in the same regard as the original trilogy, but that's not the point). So when <i>The Force Awakens</i> came out, there was this collective sigh of relief: <i>Star Wars</i> was truly back.&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">I enjoyed <i>The Force Awakens</i>, but the more I watched it, the more the nostalgia wore off. I still like it, but I also realize that it is an unapologetic rehash of <i>A New Hope</i>. People have pointed this out, but it seems like most give the film a pass. "Yeah, it's basically a remake, but, man, it really felt like <i>Star Wars</i>!" In other words, "Yeah, I've seen this movie before, but, man, it's a really good movie!"&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jeu85LbdmiE/WdUrr7NtuvI/AAAAAAAAD7U/Awep5s_nyGs_czhHKgDTwN8eyelU7sg5gCLcBGAs/s1600/star-wars-cantina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="329" data-original-width="586" height="358" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jeu85LbdmiE/WdUrr7NtuvI/AAAAAAAAD7U/Awep5s_nyGs_czhHKgDTwN8eyelU7sg5gCLcBGAs/s640/star-wars-cantina.jpg" width="640" /></span></b></a></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">This is where I disagree with fans of <i>The Force Awakens</i>. Nostalgia is all about feeling, but I didn't think <i>The Force Awakens</i> felt like a <i>Star Wars</i> movie. It had all the right parts and whatnot, but it felt different. Not bad, just different. It's to the point now that I don't even consider that film's success the product of nostalgia; it was successful simply because of recognition.&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">This is where the <i>Alien </i>and <i>Blade Runner</i> franchises come into play. Obviously nostalgia and recognition are part of the appeal (hell, Harrison Ford returns in <i>Blade Runner</i>, just like he did in <i>Star Wars</i> [PS - it's my theory that Ford is going through his most iconic characters and killing them off one by one; Deckard is probably going to die in the new <i>Blade Runner</i>, and he could also kill off Indiana Jones in the announced fifth film]), but one major difference with these two properties is that the original director, Ridley Scott, is heavily involved. Meanwhile, George Lucas, to the delight of most fans, has almost nothing to do with the new films.&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">Scott's involvement is so important because he's not a fan. Everyone working on the new <i>Star Wars</i> films are fans, so, in essence, all the new stuff is fan fiction. Fan fiction can be good, but it will always feel a step removed. Just like Lucas was willing to do something vastly different (even if a lot of fans hated it), Scott can do whatever he wants with <i>Alien </i>and <i>Blade Runner</i>.</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">This has happened a bit already. The <i>Alien </i>prequel <i>Prometheus</i>, while certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, received a lot of negative blowback online. The film, in my opinion, has been nitpicked excessively possibly because it didn't deliver enough answers and/or the same experience of the first <i>Alien </i>film. The issue here is that Scott didn't set out to do either. <i>Prometheus </i>is not technically an <i>Alien </i>film as Scott has been following a multi-film plan to lead up to the original <i>Alien</i>. That's why there isn't a proper xenomorph in the film, and it's also why there are plenty of unanswered questions.</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">The more recent <i>Alien: Covenant</i> is different. It's as if Scott listened to the upset fans of <i>Prometheus </i>and tried to do two separate things: continue his multi-film plan and give the audience something very similar to the original <i>Alien</i>. I think the film accomplishes that, but that makes it the lesser of the two new films. I enjoyed the xenomorph sequence at the end of <i>Covenant</i>, but I was much more interested in the continued story from <i>Prometheus</i>. Pleasing fans is important, but when you give into them, it's like giving into a child who wants candy for dinner. Sure, the child will be full, but it's empty nourishment. Here's hoping that the next <i>Alien </i>film leans more towards <i>Prometheus </i>than <i>Covenant</i>. (To be clear, though, I really liked both movies.)</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">One thing that is undeniable about the <i>Alien </i>prequels is that Scott is still able to create the <i>Alien </i>atmosphere. Rewatching <i>Alien </i>recently, I realized that the atmosphere is why I love that first film more than <i>Aliens</i>. It's slow and brooding and effective. It also took what the original <i>Star Wars </i>presented (a futuristic sci-fi that looks lived rather than shiny and new) and perfected it. I recall <i>Alien </i>being described as truckers in space, and that's exactly what it is. This is best exemplified by the great Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton (R.I.P.). How often in a film set on a spaceship do you have characters arguing about wages?&nbsp;All of these elements add up to a nearly perfect film. A film that could not be replicated today because of pacing alone. Look at <i>Covenant</i>; they essentially remade <i>Alien </i>in the last twenty minutes. Audiences don't have time for slow burn tension these days.</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cmiCZBRFvtk/WdUrr2oZKHI/AAAAAAAAD7M/Srb2uOpt-vEnwpe5f135NNXROOQIhl3uwCLcBGAs/s1600/space%2Btruckers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="800" height="298" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cmiCZBRFvtk/WdUrr2oZKHI/AAAAAAAAD7M/Srb2uOpt-vEnwpe5f135NNXROOQIhl3uwCLcBGAs/s640/space%2Btruckers.jpg" width="640" /></span></b></a></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">Perhaps <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>will prove me wrong, though. With a running time nearing three hours and a director (Denis Villeneuve) who specializes in mood, this could be the film that gets it right. <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>could placate fans <i>and </i>retain the atmospheric feeling of the original.&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>may have found the perfect formula for nostalgic filmmaking. Rather than shutting out the original director, allow him to be involved in the process (as Scott is on <i>2049 </i>as a producer) without giving him total control. <i>Star Wars </i>could benefit from George Lucas's input, as blasphemous as that might seem to certain fans. Don't let him go full prequel with it, but let him in on the process. The guy who started it all just might have a few ideas for where the story can go.</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">Back to <i>Blade Runner</i>, what made me fall in love with this film over the years was the mood and atmosphere. Judging it on face value, it's a boring film. (SPOILERS throughout the rest of this paragraph.) Deckard is very low energy and is no match against a replicant in a fight, and he only survives at the end because Batty lets him. It's not meant to be much of an action film, though. It's an atmospheric consideration of what life is, especially in a technologically advanced world. It's slow and beautiful. I don't rewatch it at least once a year for the badass action sequences; I watch it because I want to revisit the world of the film.</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">Of course, simply wanting to revisit the world of a film is what led to some of the problems with nostalgic filmmaking in the first place. I guess the best way to describe it is that <i>The Force Awakens </i>felt like I was looking at a picture of the <i>Star Wars </i>universe, and I hope that <i>Blade Runner 2049 </i>feels more like a return to the world.&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b style="background-color: white;">Based on early reviews for <i>2049</i>, it appears that they got it right with this one. I hope so. Because nostalgia will continue to drive the content of Hollywood as long as it's profitable. Nostalgia doesn't have to be a bad thing. When done right, filmmakers might be able to recreate the magic of the past. I'll find out this weekend when I watch <i>Blade Runner 2049</i>.</b></span></div><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></b><div style="color: #222222;"><br /></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-22073767105418472472017-04-20T17:28:00.000-05:002017-04-20T17:28:52.853-05:00Bill Paxton Tribute, Part 2: "Frailty" - "Only demons should fear me. And you're not a demon, are you?"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cEFuGby8LJ8/WPk1fU3XsrI/AAAAAAAAD4s/NMsRU7GuDvI2Rw_5LS9unvBMQKvv_0tbwCLcB/s1600/Frailty-Bill-Paxton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="368" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cEFuGby8LJ8/WPk1fU3XsrI/AAAAAAAAD4s/NMsRU7GuDvI2Rw_5LS9unvBMQKvv_0tbwCLcB/s640/Frailty-Bill-Paxton.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I planned on writing this earlier, but, as usual, I kept putting it off. I'm glad that I did, though, since this is part of my tribute to Bill Paxton, and it's likely that many people have already forgotten about his death. So this was an excuse for me to keep his work in mind and revisit one of my favorite Paxton films.</span></div><br /><i style="font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; text-align: justify;">Frailty </i><span style="font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; text-align: justify;">is unique to Paxton's filmography in that it's one of his two feature directing credits (the other is </span><i style="font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; text-align: justify;">The Greatest Game Ever Played</i><span style="font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; text-align: justify;">). It's also a very unique film in general. A single dad (Paxton) raises his two boys, Fenton and Adam, in 1970s Texas. Everything is normal until the dad (his character is never named) claims he has been visited by an angel and tasked with destroying demons. The younger son is all in and believes in his dad's new purpose. The older son, Fenton, is skeptical, of course, but becomes horrified when his dad starts kidnapping and killing people (he says the demons will appear to be normal people).&nbsp;</span><br /><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">To this day, I find the plot of this film fascinating. If you just imagine the situation of the film, it's insane. Paxton elevates it because he is so perfect for the role. Who better to play a simple Texan father <i>and </i>a seemingly crazed demon slayer?&nbsp;</span></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">My group of friends was drawn to this film upon its release (we were in high school at the time) because we were fans of Paxton. Like with most things with my group of friends, I cannot explain why this film stuck out to us, or why we still quote it when we see Paxton in something (our go-to line is the one in the title of this article). Paxton just had an indescribable quality that spoke to us. The most impressive thing about Paxton was his ability to ride the line between sincerity and hilarity. I loved his performances for their goofiness, even when he was in a serious movie. <i>Frailty </i>is the ultimate example of this.&nbsp;</span></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">(Minor and major SPOILERS from here on out.) In <i>Frailty</i>, Paxton is full of goofy charm as a single dad. He makes lame dad jokes and is constantly drinking Hamm's beer. (Hamm's is a very cheap beer, and I found it hilarious that it was his beer of choice in the film. It's even funnier when you check out the film's trivia section on IMDb, and it claims that they had to use the same can of Hamm's throughout the shoot because they could only find on period-specific can. And that can was already opened, so every time he drinks one [which is nearly every scene, by the way], the sound of a can opening has to happen offscreen. I like to think this ridiculous attention to detail was all Paxton.)&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I1ziA0t2Amo/WPk1gOG_fFI/AAAAAAAAD4w/vwqFR7kZuCo2Vrye869pVSYCHcvNI8WqwCLcB/s1600/2506_1_screenshot.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I1ziA0t2Amo/WPk1gOG_fFI/AAAAAAAAD4w/vwqFR7kZuCo2Vrye869pVSYCHcvNI8WqwCLcB/s640/2506_1_screenshot.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Notice the period-specific can of Hamm's in front of Paxton.</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">But the movie takes a severely dark turn when goofy dad starts murdering people with an axe. This is where Paxton's performance gets risky. Can you take this guy seriously as an axe murderer. Somehow, you can. Paxton was great at comedy, but he was also great at showing determination. You believe that his character believes he is killing demons, which makes him scary. That said, when he first started talking about the demon hunting, you can't help but laugh. He comes across an axe named "Otis," for God's sake! It's easy, and I believe intentional, to laugh when Paxton tells his boys with complete sincerity that "the angel" told him to do this or that.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">When Paxton starts killing people, I still found it a bit funny, but in a dark, twisted way (my sense of humor is all messed up). Something about seeing Paxton yell while swinging an axe makes me giggle. <i>Frailty</i>&nbsp;could have left the movie like this: a dad claims he's hunting demons and we never find out what was really happening. Ambiguity like that is usually celebrated in film. But <i>Frailty </i>goes all in and reveals that Paxton is actually killing demons, and doubting Fenton is wrong. That reveal made me love the film. I like ambiguity in films as much as anyone (it's always interesting to leave things up to the audience's imagination), but it's also nice to see a movie with the guts to say, "This is what's happening; it is not open to interpretation." To be clear, there is a little ambiguity to the film, and I'm sure some people have the theory that the reveal is only in Adam's mind, and he's as crazy as his dad. I think that's stretching it, though. Paxton was a straightforward actor and a straightforward director. <i>Frailty </i>is what it seems to be.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I haven't even mentioned the other actors (Matthew McConaughey and Powers Booth) or other crazy elements (Fenton digging a giant hole for days) because this article is all about Bill Paxton. But know that <i>Frailty </i>is good film all around. Let's face it, though, it's Paxton's movie. He may be gone, but he left an amazing body of work to revisit anytime you start to miss his goofy charm. R.I.P. Bill Paxton.</span></div></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-91091948027919780232017-03-06T08:49:00.000-06:002017-03-06T15:54:52.725-06:00Bill Paxton Tribute, Part One: "Club Dread" - "I think you mean 'Pina Coladaburg.'"<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R-kfRlhSSA4/WL10Qrx-kfI/AAAAAAAAD3w/h-TYze2xDZwVvWofOCwBQbX1Z5udSvPtQCLcB/s1600/1811699557-MV5BMTIzNjgzMjk3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjY4MDk2__V1_SY323_SX485_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R-kfRlhSSA4/WL10Qrx-kfI/AAAAAAAAD3w/h-TYze2xDZwVvWofOCwBQbX1Z5udSvPtQCLcB/s640/1811699557-MV5BMTIzNjgzMjk3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjY4MDk2__V1_SY323_SX485_AL_.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13.696px;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I tend not to get very sad when famous people die. I find it hard to get upset about someone I never actually met. That said, Bill Paxton's death really bummed me out. I grew up in the 90s, so I first noticed Paxton as the sniveling used car salesman in <i>True Lies</i>. For some odd reason, my friends and I still quote his character regularly (our favorite lines are, "Would a spy pee himself?" and "I got a little dick. It's pathetic!"). So I appreciated his more popular work in <i>Tombstone </i>and <i>Aliens </i>in later years. I've always found the guy to be hilarious, even when he was being serious. For example, the excellent Frailty was a source of humor among my friends, even though we also appreciated it as a thriller. (I might go ahead and write about that film next since I own it, and it was one of Paxton's only directing credits.) Paxton was always a highlight in whatever he was in.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I revisit Paxton's work often. I watch <i>True Lies</i> and <i>Tombstone </i>at least once a year. In fact, I was watching <i>Tombstone </i>the Saturday he died, though I didn't know he was dead at that point. I wanted to write about Paxton, but I didn't want to focus on one of the roles being mentioned in all the articles about his death. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">What that in mind, I decided to revisit one of his more forgotten roles: Coconut Pete from <i>Club Dread</i>. <i>Club Dread</i> was Broken Lizard's followup to <i>Super Troopers</i>. It's essentially an homage/spoof to 80s slasher films. A killer terrorizes the staff of an island resort owned and occupied by musician Coconut Pete (Paxton). Initially, I didn't care for the film, but Paxton's character stood out. Coconut Pete is basically a burnt out Jimmy Buffett. It's hard not to laugh at a long-haired Bill Paxton singing about things like a "seahorse whorehouse." <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><i>Club Dread</i> as a whole is actually underrated, but I doubt you'll find anyone (even the members of Broken Lizard) who doesn't think Paxton's scenes are the highlight of the film. My biggest complaint is that he isn't in more of the film.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wwt4fAMscDE/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wwt4fAMscDE?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">My favorite moment has to be the campfire scene. First, you get to hear a great song ("Ponytails and Cocktails"). Second, you get some sweet Jimmy Buffett jokes. It turns out that Buffett's "Margaritaville" is a rip-off of Pete's "Pina Coladaburg," which Pete wrote "seven and a half fuckin' years before 'Margaritaville' was even on the map!" Pete storms off, calling Buffett a "son of a son of a bitch" and a "mother motherfucker." <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Another highlight is Pete losing his mind explaining how to make his famous paella to the new cooks. The Coconut Pete album covers are pretty great, too. To stop myself from simply listing everything Paxton does in the movie, I'll just say that he makes the movie worth watching or, in my case, revisiting.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9b7pZN9HV7A/WL10Nf--koI/AAAAAAAAD3s/9pO4bWvvRoITh-iOm2wUtOQJtsgwkw5NgCLcB/s1600/seashanties_front.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="391" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9b7pZN9HV7A/WL10Nf--koI/AAAAAAAAD3s/9pO4bWvvRoITh-iOm2wUtOQJtsgwkw5NgCLcB/s400/seashanties_front.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Aside from Paxton, I kind of hated <i>Club Dread</i> the first time I saw it. I remember liking Coconut Pete and thinking the life-size Pac-Man maze was cool. The whole slasher spoof aspect was lost on me. I'm not sure if I just didn't get it the first time I watched it or what, but I was not impressed. Watching it now, I appreciate all of the jokes much more. I still consider this a weaker comedy than <i>Super Troopers</i> or <i>Beerfest</i>, but it's a movie I'm glad I own. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Without Paxton, I don't think I could recommend <i>Club Dread</i>. And that isn't just hyperbole now that he's gone. Credit to Broken Lizard for creating the character (who would think of lampooning Jimmy Buffett?), but Paxton runs with it. When given the freedom to go a little nuts, Paxton could make a character that makes an entire film worth watching. That's certainly the case with <i>Club Dread</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div style="font-size: 13.696px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="font-size: 13.696px;"><br /></div></div></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-52584959273471420462017-03-02T14:26:00.000-06:002017-03-02T14:26:09.337-06:00Top Eleven for 2016 - Yes, I know it's March, 2017.<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is a ridiculously late Top Eleven list. (Yes, “Top Eleven.” I just could not cut it down to ten.) Every year I wait until I’ve seen everything I wanted to see from the previous year, and it takes so long that I almost skip my Top Eleven entirely (in fact, I have skipped it in the past). But since the Academy Awards wait until the end of February to (sort of) announce their favorite film, I figured it was okay for me to wait until March. There are still a few movies I didn’t get to see, but I sincerely doubt they would have made the list. But for full disclosure, here are the most notable films I missed: <i>The Founder</i>,&nbsp;<i>Florence Foster Jenkins</i>,&nbsp;<i>The Accountant</i>,&nbsp;<i>Snowden</i>. Obviously, there are many more films I missed, but these four were either films I thought I might like or films that were mentioned for awards consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Side note about the Oscars: until they fixed their mistake at the end of the night, I only missed one guess (Affleck for Best Actor). Of course, the one time they announce the wrong Best Picture winner, it would be the one I predicted to win. Anyway, I still consider my guess half-right. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">First, let’s get into the honorable mentions. I’m including <i>La La Land</i>&nbsp;here, mainly because I actually liked it. I didn’t fall into either the love it or hate it camp with this film, which amazed me. I normally despise musicals, but I found this one enjoyable. That written, when it comes to music-themed stories of people trying to make it, I prefer <i>Sing Street</i>, which was very close to making the main list. It’s on Netflix, check it out. Here are the other films I really liked, in no particular order: <i>Deepwater Horizon</i>, <i>Hell or High Water</i>, <i>Nocturnal Animals</i>, <i>Lion</i>, <i>The Neon Demon</i>, <i>Manchester by the Sea</i>, <i>The Handmaiden</i>, <i>Fences</i>, <i>Christine</i>, <i>Hidden Figures</i>, <i>A Monster Calls</i>. Obviously, I thought this was a great year for movies, and I would recommend any of the movies I’ve listed here. Now, for my favorites.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><u><b>11. <i>The Nice Guys</i></b></u>&nbsp;– A 1970s LA-set detective comedy starring Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I started to type this in the honorable mention section and just couldn’t. That’s when this list became a Top Eleven. This is a very rewatchable movie that makes me laugh each time I watch it. Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe are surprisingly funny together, and writer-director Shane Black confirms himself as the master of the detective comedy. This one flew under the radar earlier this year, so check it out if you’ve never heard of it.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>10. <i>Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping</i></u></b>&nbsp;– A ridiculous spoof of pop stars in general.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This comedy unfortunately bombed last year, but I thought it was the funniest movie of the year. It should have been called “The Lonely Island Movie.” That’s pretty much what it is. If you don’t know The Lonely Island already, you might find the film stupid. But if you’re a fan like me, you’ll love it. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>9. <i>Hunt for the Wilderpeople</i></u></b>&nbsp;– A foster kid goes on the run with his unwilling foster parent in the New Zealand bush.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I did not expect to love this movie so much, but writer-director Taika Watiti (<i>What We Do in the Shadows</i>) injected it with so much heart, comedy, and New Zealand-ness, it became one of my favorites of the year. This is definitely a lesser known film (it’s kind of a theme for most of this list), so check it out for a funny, surprisingly emotional surprise. Also, Sam Neill is great in it, as is star Julian Dennison. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><u><b>8. <i>Hacksaw Ridge</i></b></u>&nbsp;– The true story of Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield), a conscientious objector who saved many lives in WWII without carrying a weapon.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This movie it being touted as Mel Gibson’s comeback (he directed), and I’m okay with that. But I loved it because it was such a classically effective war film. The story itself is effective, but Gibson’s decision to present it plainly is refreshing in this age of morally complex heroes. Some take issue with a movie about a proponent of non-violence being so violent, but that’s the world. We can be as non-violent as we want, but that doesn’t mean the world will be. This film’s violence was not gratuitous, it showcased how strong Doss’s conviction was in the face of such awful carnage. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><u><b>7. <i>Silence</i>&nbsp;</b></u>– Two Portuguese missionaries travel to 17<sup>th</sup>century Japan to search for their mentor, who is rumored to have renounced Catholicism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Just look at that description. Sounds pretty boring, right? But in the hands of Martin Scorsese, it is one of the most thought-provoking films concerning religion ever made. It’s not an easy watch, but it is rewarding, not to mention beautiful. It’s a shame the film was so ignored upon release. If you’re like me, you’ll watch anything Scorsese makes, and you won’t be disappointed. Sure, I prefer his more mainstream efforts, but films like <i>Silence</i>&nbsp;show what a truly diverse artist he is. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>6. <i>Deadpool</i></u></b>&nbsp;– A mercenary with superpowers tries to save his girlfriend, all while making R-rated jokes and violence.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There’s usually one comic book movie that makes my list this year; how could it not be <i>Deadpool</i>? I’m going through a bit of Marvel fatigue right now (I know, <i>Deadpool</i>&nbsp;is technically Marvel, but it isn’t part of the thirty movie Marvel Cinematic Universe), so this was a breath of fresh air. It stands on its own, and it’s hilarious. By far, <i>Deadpool</i>&nbsp;is the most enjoyable comic book movie I have seen in years.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><u><b>5. <i>Swiss Army Man</i></b></u>&nbsp;– A man stranded on an island comes across a washed up corpse that comes back to life and befriends him.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is probably the weirdest film of the year, but it’s so goofy that I loved it. It’s actually known on the internet as the “Daniel Radcliffe farting boner corpse movie.” With a nickname like that, what’s not to love? The movie actually has a lot to say about loneliness, but it says it in such an inventive and funny way. If you can get past the utter insanity of the premise, you’ll find a very enjoyable film.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><u><b>4. <i>Green Room</i></b></u>&nbsp;– A punk band accidentally witnesses a murder in the green room of a neo-Nazi bar and tries to escape with their lives.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The premise for this film comes across as a standard survival film, but in the hands of writer-director Jeremy Saulnier (<i>Blue Ruin</i>), it is one of the most effectively disturbing films in recent memory. This made it so high on my list because I, unfortunately, had to watch it on a tablet, and it still bothered me. It’s hard to describe how Saulnier accomplishes this. He creates such a realistic quality in his films that violence that has become commonplace in cinema is returned to its original horrific status. Perhaps that’s what is special about Saulnier: he presents violence in such a way that it affects you, rather than desensitizing you. Is this making sense? No? Go watch the movie. It’s available on Amazon Prime right now.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>3. <i>Rogue One</i></u></b>&nbsp;– The untold story of how the Rebellion retrieved the plans for the Death Star.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is one of the few movies I wrote a full review for last year. I felt compelled to write about it because I like it more than <i>The Force Awakens</i>. Plus, I’m a <i>Star Wars</i>&nbsp;fan. So this film hit on all cylinders for me. No need to recommend this one. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of it.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><u><b>2. <i>Arrival</i></b></u>&nbsp;– Aliens arrive on Earth, and a linguist (Amy Adams) must find a way to communicate with them.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Director Denis Villeneuve (<i>Sicario</i>, <i>Prisoners</i>, <i>Enemy</i>) has quickly become one of my favorite working directors. The sci-fi story was already appealing to me, but Villeneuve elevates it though his masterful use of tone. But it’s every aspect of the film coming together that makes it one of my favorites. The script is sci-fi with heart, which is always difficult; it’s also surprising, which is an increasingly rare feat. The acting all around is great, anchored by Amy Adams, who should have won Best Actress this year. If you skipped out on this movie because of the science fiction element, do yourself a favor and check it out.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>1. <i>The Lobster</i></u></b>&nbsp;– In an unspecified future/alternate reality, relationships are required; anyone not in a relationship is turned into an animal of their choosing.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Nearly every year, there’s a weird movie I love that I don’t recommend. This year, it’s “The Lobster,” and it’s also my favorite of the year. Writer-director Yorgos Lanthimos (<i>Dogtooth</i>) has a hilarious, deadpan black comedy voice that I find hilarious. Others might find it simply strange. There is plenty of social commentary about the importance we place on relationships, but it’s not preachy. It’s more about pointing out the absurdity of certain aspects of relationships (having things in common, having children to fix struggling relationships, etc.). It could come across as bitter and condescending, but it ends up being equally hilarious and disturbing. What put it over the top for me was Colin Farrell’s perfectly sad performance. Since flaming out in the early 2000s, he’s been giving increasingly impressive performances, and <i>The Lobster</i>&nbsp;is his best yet. This film is not for everyone, but if it’s for you, you’ll love it as much as I did.</span><o:p></o:p></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-34282460588365113272017-01-18T22:31:00.003-06:002017-01-18T22:31:40.527-06:00"Elle" <div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Elle</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zbe_5moqg4M/WIBBCR-jWLI/AAAAAAAAD2o/vRVNQiki2dYfpXFA8YCruSppckIRTZpOwCLcB/s1600/elle-paul-verhoeven-isabelle-huppert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zbe_5moqg4M/WIBBCR-jWLI/AAAAAAAAD2o/vRVNQiki2dYfpXFA8YCruSppckIRTZpOwCLcB/s640/elle-paul-verhoeven-isabelle-huppert.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Paul Verhoeven has had quite an interesting late career. After making (what I consider) classics like <i>Robocop, Total Recall, </i>and <i>Starship Troopers</i>, Verhoeven slowed down and re-emerged with <i>Black Book </i>(a surprisingly impressive WWII film about a female spy). He followed that up with <i>Tricked</i>, a short film (under one hour) that I didn't see. Now he's back with another interesting female-driven film: <i>Elle</i>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Elle </i>starts off mid-rape. That should be enough to let you know if you're going to stick with it or bail out. Many will probably bail out. It's understandable. Rape is not a simple issue, and this film's treatment of it can be seen as offensive. It's understandable if people come away offended, but this is a truly interesting film about modern women that should not be defined by rape.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Elle </i>is a complex character piece about the titular woman played by Isabelle Huppert. Huppert, by the way, gives one of the most nuanced, amusing performances of the year. The film starts out with her being raped, and it seems like it's going to be a thriller about her finding out who did it, but it's so much more than that. Who raped her is not really that important. Her reaction to the rape is more interesting that who did it. She reacts as if it were a common everyday occurrence, finally telling her ex-husband and a couple friends at dinner a few days after it happens.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">To explain much further would be pointless. There are so many sub-plots that it would disservice the film to list them because it would make it seem melodramatic, which it is not. <i>Elle </i>is endlessly fascinating, and, more importantly, darkly comic. You can't help but laugh during certain moments.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is why the rape issue should not be the be-all end-all. People get hung up on that word and can't deal with the film beyond it. But this film is about a woman who has experienced trauma before and refuses to be defined by it. She takes over the trauma, rather than letting it define her. Maybe that makes it offensive, but it's really more empowering than your standard rape/revenge film. Just giving a woman a knife and letting her get revenge does not make her powerful; it makes her the same as her attacker. Having a woman experience rape, among many other things, and then moving on in her own way is much more powerful.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That said, this isn't some feminist film about the power of women. Verhoeven delights in our expected reactions. Who else would start a film that is nearly a comedy with a rape? He's playing with our perception, which is what makes his latest work among his most interesting. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a resurgence of his gory, action heyday, but this type of film is equally satisfying. It is easily the most thought-provoking work of Verhoeven's career.</span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-32121205815174477832017-01-18T14:43:00.002-06:002017-01-18T14:43:49.731-06:00"Arsenal" - You Can Just Save Time and Watch the Youtube Clips of Cage*<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Arsenal</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dEdJlZ1hn_Q/WH_TcxqNrAI/AAAAAAAAD18/UFlbUicoGKY7_mpx7sDosq17hwVn9HoyACLcB/s1600/nicolas-cage-arsenal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dEdJlZ1hn_Q/WH_TcxqNrAI/AAAAAAAAD18/UFlbUicoGKY7_mpx7sDosq17hwVn9HoyACLcB/s640/nicolas-cage-arsenal.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">*Actually, all you'll find are small clips and trailers. He is the best part of this movie, but his scenes don't come close to the insanity of <i>Deadfall</i>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I don't actually own <i>Arsenal</i>, thankfully, but when I was able to get a screener link to this odd film that features Nicolas Cage reprising a dead character from <i>Deadfall</i>, I had to check it out. Unfortunately, Cage's character is the only similarity to <i>Deadfall</i>. To be fair, <i>Deadfall </i>is terrible, but Cage makes it worth watching with his unhinged "my brother told to do whatever I want" performance. It appears that he was not given as much freedom for <i>Arsenal</i>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>Arsenal </i>stars Adrian Grenier as an owner of a construction business who will do whatever it takes to help out his troubled brother (Johnathon Schaech).&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">When his brother ends up kidnapped by the wannabe gangster (Cage) he used to work for, Grenier goes on a mission to save him. It's not a terrible plot, but it is pretty bland. It's the kind of plot that could be saved by an eccentric performance or a unique style. As far as style goes, the film is very basic aside from oddly gruesome slow motion violence here and there. No one is watching this for action, though; we want that eccentric Cage performance.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Cage does get to go a bit crazy here, mainly in two violent scenes. You need to have seen <i>Deadfall </i>to appreciate the performance, however. Honestly, fans of <i>Deadfall </i>are probably the only people who will get even a small bit of enjoyment out of this film. I consider myself a fan of <i>Deadfall</i>, but I came away disappointed. (Warning: SPOILERS for <i>Arsenal </i>and <i>Deadfall</i>&nbsp;from here on out.)</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">When I found out Cage was reprising his role of Eddie from <i>Deadfall</i>, I had high hopes. In <i>Deadfall</i>, he is pushed face first into a deep fryer, and his body is disposed of. I hoped <i>Arsenal </i>would posit that he was actually still alive and was now hiding out in a small town. That's not the case. He's simply the same character. That's it. <i>Deadfall </i>didn't happen.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This makes very little sense because the film goes out of its way to remind you of Eddie in <i>Deadfall</i>:&nbsp;he speaks straight up gibberish early on; when he kills his brother it's with a slow motion punch that really looks like a karate chop ("Hi-fucking-yah!") until the last second; he mumbles most of his dialogue; he uses eyedrops randomly in what's supposed to be an important scene. Why recreate all of that only to have him play second fiddle in this weak story about brotherhood? This film could have been so funny and unique if they had made it a quasi-sequel to <i>Deadfall</i>.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Then there's the oddest <i>Deadfall </i>connection: the writer-director of that film, Christopher Coppola, plays Eddie's brother (Coppola is Cage's real life brother, too). Eddie kills his brother early on in a fit of rage. This leads me to my only theory for the&nbsp;<i>Deadfall</i>&nbsp;connection. Cage agreed to do this film, but would only do it if he could reprise his role as Eddie and kill his brother onscreen. This is his onscreen payback for his brother's crappy film. I don't think Cage is actually ashamed of <i>Deadfall</i>, but he is aware of his insane performances (he claims <i>The Wicker Man </i>was intentionally funny). He and his brother probably thought it would be a funny in-joke to have Eddie kill Coppola. That's probably not the case, but thinking of why Eddie is in this film brought me my only enjoyment from watching it.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Oh, and John Cusack is in this film. I have no idea why.</span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-9574092131303447062017-01-03T14:45:00.000-06:002017-01-03T14:45:04.430-06:00"Deadfall" - You Can Just Save Time and Watch the Youtube Clips of Cage<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Deadfall</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m3bQvFRhGYk/WGwIclMBBaI/AAAAAAAAD04/VxslVTUpX44gfpY9XZfmT0ILrU7RbQnLQCLcB/s1600/deadfall-cage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="414" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m3bQvFRhGYk/WGwIclMBBaI/AAAAAAAAD04/VxslVTUpX44gfpY9XZfmT0ILrU7RbQnLQCLcB/s640/deadfall-cage.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Originally, I was going to write about <i>National Treasure </i>for this post, but something better came up. I was sent a screener link to Nicolas Cage's newest film, <i>Arsenal</i>. At first, it didn't seem to be worth my time, and I figured I'd wait until Netflix to check it out. But then I came across some astounding information: Nicolas Cage was reprising his crazed character from <i>Deadfall </i>for the film. This led to two things. One: I had to buy <i>Deadfall</i>, re-watch it, and write about it. Two: I had to watch <i>Arsenal </i>and post a review when the embargo is lifted in a few days. So right off the bat, I own this Cage "classic" just so I could write about it.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This isn't the first Cage film I bought just for his insane performance. I bought <i>The Wicker Man </i>years ago, and I proudly own <i>Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans</i>, among others. Nicolas Cage is one of my favorite actors, especially when a director lets him do whatever he wants. <i>Deadfall </i>is written and directed by Cage's brother, Christopher Coppola, so you know he gave Cage complete freedom.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Aside from Cage's hilarious performance (which is the only reason to watch this insipid wannabe noir con movie, <i>Deadfall </i>stands out for being a movie completely made by doing favors for the Coppola family. The cast includes James Coburn, Talia Shire, Charlie Sheen, and Peter Fonda. There is simply no reason why these actors would take part in this film aside from helping out a family member and/or friend. It's probable that the star, Michael Biehn, took the job sincerely, but his performance reeks of someone going through the motions along with the others...except for Cage.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is why Cage is such a fun actor to watch. Most people would come to this nepotism project with the least possible effort, but Cage truly turned up for his brother. He's not one to sit back and coast through a film when he's given the chance to do something unique, and my God, is he unique in this film.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Cage is such a standout because the story is so boring. I'm not a fan of good con movies, much less crap like this, so <i>Deadfall</i>'s plot, about a young con man (Biehn) looking for answers from his con man uncle (Coburn) after accidentally killing his con man father (also Coburn), is extremely difficult to stay interested in. It doesn't help that Biehn is challenging Harrison Ford (from the theatrical cut of <i>Blade Runner</i>) for most disinterested narration of all time.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xjvAmuHPRSo/WGwIczXPwTI/AAAAAAAAD1A/_ZICiHztYBA_Xd0mrz74On7KKTivwekvQCLcB/s1600/cage.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xjvAmuHPRSo/WGwIczXPwTI/AAAAAAAAD1A/_ZICiHztYBA_Xd0mrz74On7KKTivwekvQCLcB/s400/cage.gif" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So the first few minutes of <i>Deadfall </i>are quite a slog. But then, Cage appears. His wardrobe makes little sense throughout (my favorite is the tuxedo, cummerbund and all). He wears sunglasses to hide his hilariously bloodshot eyes (I couldn't help but be reminded of Slurms McKenzie from <i>Futurama </i>when Cage slowly takes of the shades). His wig is bad, even by Cage standards (but in a great twist, it's shown to be a wig in the film). And his line delivery ranges from stoned mumble to outright nonsensical jabbering. In other words, perfect Cage.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8-NrZh_N48E/WGwIc4tkf4I/AAAAAAAAD08/2Qpzdj4Rqo0O57eTSYjout0VZp1qLl77QCLcB/s1600/7c6d309e11a69bd2d0786fcf74a40785.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8-NrZh_N48E/WGwIc4tkf4I/AAAAAAAAD08/2Qpzdj4Rqo0O57eTSYjout0VZp1qLl77QCLcB/s320/7c6d309e11a69bd2d0786fcf74a40785.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Had Cage's character, named Eddie, by the way, been the main character, <i>Deadfall </i>would be one of the funniest, craziest bad movies of all time. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, his character (SPOILERS) is killed off little more than halfway through. The Cage-less portion is hard to watch, even with a strange cameo from Charlie Sheen, and the appearance of Angus Scrimm, who is playing what appears to be a crappy James Bond villain (his name is Dr. Lyme and, for reasons never explained, he has a pneumatic lobster claw for a right arm).&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is why <i>Arsenal </i>interests me. Someone is attempting to fix the mistake of this film, and bring Eddie back from the dead. I can't wait for the explanation for his character still being alive in this new film (and I kind of hope there isn't one). My main hope is that Eddie hasn't calmed down in his old age.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C2YupaFAM0c/WGwM8DvJwrI/AAAAAAAAD1Q/VtqMbLh8eV81NaM3N41O1xWVJ1nrcqZdgCLcB/s1600/20170103_143106.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C2YupaFAM0c/WGwM8DvJwrI/AAAAAAAAD1Q/VtqMbLh8eV81NaM3N41O1xWVJ1nrcqZdgCLcB/s320/20170103_143106.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Which version of Cage would you rather watch? Also, the Cage<br />in the first cover does not appear in the film.</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Of course, I plan on keeping this crazy, weird film. I'll even keep the stupid cardboard cover the studio added to make the movie look more normal. Why would you want to play down the craziness of Cage in this film? It's the only part worth watching. Here's hoping <i>Arsenal </i>even crazier.</span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-52921211543617745972016-11-22T10:22:00.000-06:002016-11-22T10:22:35.033-06:00"Major League II" - The Sequel I Should Hate, But I Love<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Major League II</u></i></b></span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qDG3bPHuzuQ/WDRtwIVN_DI/AAAAAAAADy8/t6g2KSwW8SkFEtz8u8-YD38IV-0p8oqEQCLcB/s1600/ml23.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qDG3bPHuzuQ/WDRtwIVN_DI/AAAAAAAADy8/t6g2KSwW8SkFEtz8u8-YD38IV-0p8oqEQCLcB/s640/ml23.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b style="font-family: georgia, &quot;times new roman&quot;, serif; text-align: justify;">*The main purpose of Why Do I Own This? is to take a movie from my personal collection and answer that question. I then decide whether or not to keep the film.</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>**</b>I cheated a bit and purposely chose this movie for my next review because of the timeliness of it. The Cubs recently beat the Indians in the World Series. I'm a lifelong Cardinals fan (and Cubs hater), so I wanted to watch the Indians win. Unfortunately, they only win in the movies.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I'll go ahead and get this out of the way: I own <i>Major League II </i>because I love it, and there is no way I'll be getting rid of this one (I will probably get rid of very few of these, honestly, since I always end up realizing why I bought them in the first place). <i>Major League II </i>is a special movie for me and my friends. I grew up playing baseball, and this movie came out when I was ten years old. My friends and I would watch this dozens of times over the years (to the point that we would get in heated arguments about some of the dialogue [the conversations between Pedro Cerrano and Tanaka were hard to follow at times]). Perhaps this is why the goofier tone of this PG-13 film appealed to me a bit more than the R-rated original. Looking back, it's clear that the original is the superior movie, but because of nostalgia this film holds a special place for me.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">As far as plot goes, <i>Major League II </i>sticks to roughly the same formula as the original. The Indians, though successful by the end of the last film, have already lost their way by the next season and are just as bad, if not worse, than last year. Actually, there's no point going over the plot because this movie completely recaps the first movie at the beginning. I kind of love that. It's like a "previously on" that TV shows do. Some movies could benefit from that. Like the <i>Divergent </i>series, for example. I caught the most recent one on HBO the other day and had no idea what was going on. A <i>Major League II </i>style recap would have done wonders for that movie.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Anyway, there's no point in writing some proper review of this sequel that most people have forgotten. Instead, I'm just going to list all the stuff that I love, and that my friends and I still quote on a regular basis.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Right off the bat, you know you're in for a treat with the classy Roman numeral for the <i>II</i>. In an era that now frowns upon numbered films, it's nice to look back at a time when sequels weren't ashamed to be numbered. But the Roman numeral is a lie, this is not a classy movie.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Bob Uecker. The more I re-watch these movies, the more I realize he's the best part. His sobriety at the beginning of this film is troubling, but the Indians suck bad enough to make him fall off the wagon pretty early on.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Nice jacket." Not sure why, but when Charlie Sheen notices Jack Parkman for the first time, he makes this comment. It's just a stupid thing to say, especially since he's not saying it to Parkman, but instead saying it to Omar Epps.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Speaking of Omar Epps, he is playing the Wesley Snipes role this time around. Normally a casting change like this would be annoying, but in <i>Major League II</i>'s most 4th wall-breaking moment, Snipes is made fun of for abandoning this comedy to focus on being an action star. Honestly, I would watch the fake action movie Epps's character made with Jesse Ventura. You can't beat those one liners: "Mine fell the hardest!" "Mine are the deadest!" "Ha ha ha!"&nbsp;</span></li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZeoBXS53SJ8/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZeoBXS53SJ8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Also, this was my first introduction to Epps. Without this film, I would not have enjoyed this moment from <i>Dracula 2000 </i>nearly as much:</span></li></ul></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CbMYk-lCKOw/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CbMYk-lCKOw?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Upside down!" As I'm writing this, it just occurred to me that Richard Schiff played the director of the commercial Charlie Sheen was screwing up.</span></li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hp_Ju_vbPro/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hp_Ju_vbPro?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Who used heart attack?" "Me...(collapses from heart attack)" James Gammon became a rage monster in this movie, and I love it. His performance in the first film is funnier since he's less animated, but he's still hilarious amped up in this one. The goofy scenes when he's sneak-listening to the final game still crack me up.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">My favorite Bob Uecker lines: "Welcome back to Major League Baseball...sort of." "Oh shit." (His on-air reaction to what appears to be a home run.) "Baker steps in. He's 0 for...I don't know. Who cares?" "You know I used to hate Parkman when he was with the A's? It's funny how a new uniform can change your attitude about a guy. (Off mic): He's still a dick!" "Dorn's 0 for the century against this guy. But he has several foul tips."</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Speaking of Jack Parkman, David Keith played a great asshole. I still wish David Keith would team up with Keith David for a buddy cop movie or a Funny or Die video or something.</span></li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WF4WqL1V0_Q/WDRwOAPA_9I/AAAAAAAADzI/X-oEztBIDEUXTitPyZnRINhLA1ghUwxJQCLcB/s1600/ml24.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WF4WqL1V0_Q/WDRwOAPA_9I/AAAAAAAADzI/X-oEztBIDEUXTitPyZnRINhLA1ghUwxJQCLcB/s1600/ml24.jpg" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"May you be mounted by a rabid dog." I used to say that line a lot, and once got in trouble at school for saying that to a friend in the hallway in front of a teacher. I bet I'm the only person who ever got sent to the office because of <i>Major League II</i>.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Roger Dorn's pinch hit (bean), followed by his refusal to allow a pinch runner was great.</span></li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bdDplLiLbR0/WDRtvxGskII/AAAAAAAADy4/5Q6IxE2PouYYy-zLy5kzZ928qUKTsigjQCLcB/s1600/ml21.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bdDplLiLbR0/WDRtvxGskII/AAAAAAAADy4/5Q6IxE2PouYYy-zLy5kzZ928qUKTsigjQCLcB/s320/ml21.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Paid attendance today is...1,412." Seriously? Do you realize how few fans that is? And this team made the playoffs the year before! Cleveland fans (in the movie world) are crazy fickle.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Now that we know Randy Quaid is a crazy person, I'm convinced he just thought he was going to actual Indians games. That said, how insane a fan is he? Charlie Sheen is right on the money when he calls him a maniac. Only a maniac would show up to every single game just to trash his former favorite team.&nbsp;</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Cerrano's swinging balls home run trot was mimicked hundreds of times during my high school baseball practices.</span></li></ul><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gwMIot_hbZ8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gwMIot_hbZ8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Okay, that's enough. I could go on until I point out every minute of this movie. And that's crazy. It's not a very good movie. It's basically a carbon copy of the first film, but toned down and with a few roles reversed. In fact, the R to PG-13 rating usually annoys me to no end, but it doesn't bother me with this movie. The fact that this first film feels like a real baseball movie, and this sequel is the cartoon version of it doesn't bother me. Honestly, if this movie came out just three or four years later than it did, I would probably despise it. But it came out at the perfect moment for me, and it will always stand out as an example of how nostalgia can influence your opinion of a movie forever. When I want to watch a good baseball movie, I watch <i>Major League</i>. When I want to feel like a kid again, I watch <i>Major League II</i>.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>New(ish) Movie Thoughts</u></b></span></div><div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Neon Demon </i>- I feel like I need to watch this again before I weigh in on it, but here goes anyway. I love Nicolas Winding Refn, so I liked <i>The Neon Demon</i>, but I wasn't blown away by it, like I was with <i>Bronson </i>and <i>Drive</i>. It's definitely an interesting watch, though. The visuals and score are as good as you've come to expect from Refn. The movie itself is even stranger than I expected, however. By the end, I realized (maybe incorrectly) that I was a watching a black comedy that makes fun of all the cliches about beauty. "It's what's on the inside that counts." If you remember that saying (which is mentioned in the film), then the ending becomes darkly hilarious. Also, Keanu Reeves is in this, for some reason, playing a scumbag motel manager. My initial thoughts were borderline negative, but I'm going to watch it one more time, and it won't surprise me if this ends up being one of my favorite films this year. Refn's films just have that odd effect on me.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Jackie </i>- I'm starting to get awards-season screeners, and this is one of the higher-profile ones I've received so far. Natalie Portman is great as Jackie Kennedy, but the film was a bit too focused on the assassination of JFK for me. I thought the film would be a bit more broad and deal with her life overall after the assassination. Instead, it focuses on the week or so after the event. You can't fault a movie for what it set out to do, though. I just didn't feel that this focused of a story warranted a full-length film. That written, <i>Jackie </i>is still an effective film. The way it is shot and the music created an eerie, almost horror movie vibe, which was interesting. Definitely worth a watch. Just know what you're watching. I went in blind, and it disappointed me a bit. Perhaps if I knew what to expect, I would have liked it more.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Sausage Party </i>- Believe it or not, I received an awards screener for this, too. I loved it. It's everything I thought it would be. Also, after finally watching it, hearing stories of clueless parents letting their kids watch even a minute of this crack me up even more. This movie earns its R-rating.&nbsp;</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Birth of a Nation </i>- This movie was supposed to be a big awards contender until an old rape trial resurfaced involving star/writer/producer Nate Parker. He was found not guilty (though the co-writer of the film was initially found guilty in the same case and eventually sought an appeal that didn't happen when the victim chose not to testify again), but the damage has been done. Any allegations of rape need to be considered seriously, but I do think Hollywood is being a bit hypocritical here. Roman Polanski has won an Oscar (which he couldn't show up to accept because he would be arrested), yet this man, deemed not guilty, is being ostracized and his film largely dismissed. Honestly, I would not consider <i>The Birth of a Nation </i>one of the best films of the year, but I don't think it should be judged the way it has been lately. As for the movie, it's certainly an effective story of slavery, though it felt amateurish at times in performance and production (possibly due to budget constraints). Also, even it pales in comparison to <i>12 Years a Slave</i>, even if it shouldn't be looked at side-by-side with that film. The movies have been released too closely together to not compare them. Though <i>Birth </i>is more about rising up against racial injustice as a unified group and <i>12 Years </i>was the story of a single man. Either way, this is a film people should watch and judge by what's onscreen.&nbsp;</span></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-40405487838791397232016-11-07T21:19:00.001-06:002016-11-15T19:39:09.106-06:00"Insomnia" - The Forgotten Film in Nolan's "In" Trilogy<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Insomnia</u></i></b></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: medium;"><b>*The main purpose of Why Do I Own This? is to take a movie from my personal collection and answer that question. I then decide whether or not to keep the film.</b></span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZT-umjG0EgQ/WCFAZcg5LBI/AAAAAAAADyU/9oSFZVOc0JADte9FKyurSkI1Xo2rgt3BwCLcB/s1600/pacinowilliams.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="434" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZT-umjG0EgQ/WCFAZcg5LBI/AAAAAAAADyU/9oSFZVOc0JADte9FKyurSkI1Xo2rgt3BwCLcB/s640/pacinowilliams.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This one of those movies I forgot I owned and nearly forgot existed at all. This is surprising since <i>Insomnia </i>is directed by Christopher Nolan, and it's a pretty good movie starring Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, and Robin Williams. Compared to Nolan's other films, however, <i>Insomnia </i>is quite plain. There is no superhero&nbsp;<i>(The Dark Knight </i>trilogy), no space travel (<i>Insterstellar)</i>, no magic (<i>The Prestige</i>), no narrative trickery (<i>Memento</i>), and no dream manipulation with zero-G fight sequences (<i>Insterstellar</i>). &nbsp;(To be fair, there's also<i>&nbsp;Following</i>, but to my shame, I have yet to watch Nolan's first film.) <i>Insomnia </i>is easily the most traditional film Nolan has made, for better or worse. I do like <i>Insomnia</i>, and rewatching it was interesting since it had been so long, but it is definitely my least favorite Nolan film, and definitely the lesser of his "In" trilogy of <i>Insomnia</i>, <i>Inception</i>, and <i>Interstellar</i>. (Pretty sure that's not an actual trilogy, but it's weird that he's made three movies that start with "In.")</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">So why did I buy this? Well, looking at the case, which is one of those half-cardboard/half-plastic jobs from the early days of DVD when you had to look closely to see if you were buying the full screen or widescreen edition (I always tried to go with widescreen), I noticed some sticker residue over the barcode. Then I remembered where I got this movie: the local videostore. The sticker residue was from the low quality stickers the store used to cover the original bar code, which bothered me enough to remove it. (I'm weird like that. I also make a point to remove the security device from every movie I buy.) My local video store, a Video Vault that eventually became a Movie Gallery before closing, used to sell their old DVDs. They were usually overpriced, but if you bought four, you got the fifth for free, which made it a slight deal. <i>Insomnia </i>was definitely that fifth, free DVD.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">It's not that the film is unwatchable after a first viewing, it's just that, for me, it's only worth watching again once you've forgotten most of the plot. That's not enough rewatchability to warrant a purchase. But since I did rewatch it, I guess I should weigh in on it.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The two main performances are the main takeaway from watching <i>Insomnia </i>in 2016. Pacino has long since lost legitimacy, but back in 2002 (when this film was released) he still appeared to be trying. Interestingly enough, <i>Insomnia </i>would be the perfect film for him to make today, since the role calls for him to basically sleepwalk. Pacino's detective is suffering from the titular insomnia, since he's covering a murder case in Alaska during the season when the sun stays up around the clock. He looks rough, and plays the part perfectly. He also employs his talk quietly then EXPLODE technique to good effect before it became a joke. And while I haven't seen all of his movies since <i>Insomnia</i>, I still think it's safe to say this is his most recent great performance.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The true star and reason to watch this movie, though, is Robin Williams. After his unfortunate death two years ago (it does <i>not </i>seem like it's been two year already), most people pointed to his Oscar-winning performance or to a performance they loved from their childhood. <i>Insomnia </i>went mostly unmentioned, which is a shame. Williams turns in a creepily calm performance that is vastly more interesting than a typical murderer role. Williams will be remembered for his more antic performances, but it's his work in films like <i>Insomnia </i>that is truly impressive.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Mentioning that Williams's character is a murderer might seem like a spoiler, but that's what makes this film stand out slightly from the pack. The film is not concerned with who the murderer is; the focus is on the individual morality of the three leads. This applies to Swank, too, who I don't have much to write about because her character, the starstruck local cop, is the least interesting of the three. Watching these three characters wrestle with their consciences and actions is much more rewarding than simply pointing to a character and saying, "They're the killer!"&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Finally, while this is Nolan's least interesting film, visually speaking, it is still above average in the style department. The locations make for beautiful and interesting backdrops, but the editing and camerawork have the lasting effect, as Nolan attempted to put the viewer inside Pacino's troubled, tired mind, and he succeeded.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I covered why I bought this film, but why do still I own it? Before I rewatched it, I would have said this movie had no place in my collection. But now, I've decided to keep it. Partly, it's because I'm a Nolan completist (I consider him one of my favorite current directors. I rewatched <i>Insterstellar </i>[my favorite of his "In" trilogy] recently and was surprised at how interesting and effective I found it after my fourth viewing.) I'm mainly keeping it because of what I realized when I rewatched it: this film is very interesting once you've largely forgotten it. So I'll hang onto it and watch it again sometime around 2026.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u>New(ish) Movie Thoughts</u></b></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>Deepwater Horizon - </i>The second film in Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg's trilogy of true American stories (the first being <i>Lone Survivor </i>and the next one being <i>Patriots Day</i>) is just as well-made and effective as you'd expect. It's refreshing that Berg and Wahlberg (no relation) tend to focus on the event itself rather than the aftermath, especially since this event in the news was almost solely about the environmental impact. The disaster on the rig itself is worthy of its own film, and it hits on every note a film should. There's nothing flashy or very remarkable from a filmmaking standpoint; it's simply a good, effective film about a tragic event.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>The Girl on the Train </i>- This one disappointed me a bit. I liked Emily Blunt's performance, but the film overall felt like a slightly bigger budget Lifetime movie. I give it a few bonus points for a surprisingly gory scene near the end, but this film simply did not work for me. I didn't hate it. I'm just indifferent to it. Full disclosure: I did not read the book beforehand, and do not plan to after seeing this adaptation.</span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-56981137843673240442016-09-28T22:55:00.003-05:002016-09-29T16:42:02.027-05:00"Signs"<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">*The main purpose of Why Do I Own This? is to take a movie from my (too) large collection and answer that question. I then decide whether or not to keep the movie.</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Signs</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dk-9yw-C6i4/V-yQslD2M9I/AAAAAAAADxY/Hi1bvtx8C-UiBeKnt-l-2f7dB4CF1O7TACLcB/s1600/signs-movie-foil-hats-joaquin-phoenix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dk-9yw-C6i4/V-yQslD2M9I/AAAAAAAADxY/Hi1bvtx8C-UiBeKnt-l-2f7dB4CF1O7TACLcB/s640/signs-movie-foil-hats-joaquin-phoenix.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">For this week, I went to my sci-fi shelf and came away with M. Night Shyamalan’s <i>Signs</i>. Re-watching this movie, a favorite of mine upon its release in 2002, is a perfect reason for doing these reviews. I watched this movie plenty of times soon after I purchased it fourteen years ago, but I had not watched it for years since then. I wondered if it held up, especially since Shyamalan fell from grace soon after this film (he’s made a comeback of sorts lately) and people were retroactively judging his early films more critically. It turns out, at least for me, that <i>Signs</i>&nbsp;holds up.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The main reason for my love of <i>Signs</i>&nbsp;is the basic premise: an alien invasion movie set in a secluded area. Alien invasion movies usually show a scene or two at a farm or other small town setting, but rarely do they completely take place there. “Signs” went for intimacy in a genre that typically goes big and broad, and the emotional payoff is much more satisfying than any explosion.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Nostalgia also plays a factor in my love for this film (and most films in my collection). My friends and I loved this movie when it came out. We thought it was creepy and funny, and we even admitted that it got to us on an emotional level (late 90s/early 2000s Mel Gibson has that effect on me). So watching this movie takes me back. The moments that gave me chills (the cut to a shadowy alien standing on top of the barn) still work. And the scenes that made me laugh (“Excluding the possibility that a female Scandinavian Olympian was running around outside our house last night…”) still work. And, I’ll admit, I still teared up at the end. Any movie that can do that the first time and the tenth time I see it is special.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">When dealing with a movie from a few years ago, it’s impossible not to think about what has happened to the actors and filmmakers since the film came out. While watching this, I mainly thought about what changed for Joaquin Phoenix, Mel Gibson, and M. Night Shyamalan. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Joaquin Phoenix has been a favorite of mine since I noticed him in <i>8MM</i>. His work a few years after <i>Signs</i>&nbsp;took an interesting turn. He devoted a year or so of his life pretending to leave acting to pursue a rap career as part of a hoax for a fake documentary. The documentary was definitely unique, but it turned out to be more of a waste than anything. Thankfully, he’s back now, and has recently turned in great performances in Paul Thomas Anderson’s last two films, <i>The Master</i>&nbsp;and <i>Inherent Vice</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">As for Mel Gibson, everyone knows what happened with him. His multiple, offensive outbursts, both public and private, nearly ended his career. For many, he’s still an unwelcome presence. Despite the public opinion about him, he has returned as well, though to a lesser degree of success than Phoenix. He has acted in a handful of features, but he does have a new directorial effort, <i>Hacksaw Ridge</i>, that appears to be an Oscar hopeful. Still, watching this movie made me pine for the pre-controversy days of Gibson. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Writer/director M. Night Shyamalan went through a rough phase, too, but his was based entirely on his work. After <i>Signs</i>, which does not have a twist (unless you count an alien movie actually having aliens a twist), he went back to the well with <i>The Village</i>. It turns out people were done with the twist endings of Shyamalan. Looking back, <i>The Village</i>&nbsp;was judged a bit too harshly, but it is definitely beneath <i>Unbreakable</i>, <i>Signs</i>, and <i>The Sixth Sense</i>. But he went way too self-indulgent with his next movie, <i>Lady in the Water</i>, which failed to find an audience. Then the wheels fell off with <i>The Happening</i>, which is laughably bad (I still regularly make fun of Mark Wahlberg playing a science teacher in that film [“Don’t you guys want to know what’s goin’ on with the bees?”]). <i>The Happening</i>&nbsp;was followed by <i>The Last Airbender</i>&nbsp;and <i>After Earth</i>. That unholy trinity made many write Shyamalan off. But <i>The Visit</i>&nbsp;received generally positive reviews, and his newest film, <i>Split</i>, is earning high praise at film festivals. Still, much like Gibson, I view this movie with sadness, knowing that it was an end of an era for an interesting filmmaker. But hopefully he keeps his current streak going.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Why do I own this? I loved it in 2002, and I love it in 2016. I even like the opening credits, and I remember kind of hating them the first time I saw this. So this is that rare movie that has improved with age. I’ll definitely be keeping this one.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><u><b>New(ish) Movie Thoughts</b></u><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>Captain America: Civil War</i>&nbsp;– I finally got a chance to see the biggest movie of the year. I liked it, of course, but it didn’t blow me away. I think I’m getting Marvel fatigue. Still, it’s enjoyable, and everything about it works. I really enjoyed the new Spider-Man. I can’t believe I’m looking forward to a third incarnation of Spider-Man already, but somehow I am. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping</i>&nbsp;– This is The Lonely Island movie that bombed a few months ago. I love The Lonely Island, therefore I love this movie. I’m not much on reviewing comedies, even briefly. Basically, if you like The Lonely Island, you should love this. Simple as that.</span><o:p></o:p></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-63264790385282538422016-09-15T15:46:00.001-05:002016-09-15T15:46:13.510-05:00Why Do I Own This? "Universal Soldier: The Return"<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Universal Soldier: The Return</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iSLlAPxn4J8/V9sIeh5ThvI/AAAAAAAADw4/c6uq8oOdOzAIN10oQdKkdX-6BXYnTH0jgCLcB/s1600/goldberg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iSLlAPxn4J8/V9sIeh5ThvI/AAAAAAAADw4/c6uq8oOdOzAIN10oQdKkdX-6BXYnTH0jgCLcB/s640/goldberg.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So far, not so good. My intentions with this new series of reviews was to lower the amount of DVDs I own, but my first review required me to actually add one to my collection. For these reviews, the plan is to go to a shelf of DVDs I own (there are twelve shelves to choose from) and blindly choose one movie. So I decided I should go with the shelf with all of my Jean-Claude Van Damme movies, since he is my favorite 80s/90s action star. I closed my eyes and came back with a “classic” bad Van Damme movie: <i>Universal Soldier: The Return</i>. It had been a few years since I had watched the DVD (part of the reason for this project is to possibly get rid of movies I haven’t watched in years), so I was looking forward to revisiting it. But it wasn’t meant to be as I opened the case to find it empty. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">My first thought was to just switch movies, but I dismissed that because now I was interested in <i>Universal Soldier: The Return</i>. Then I considered streaming it, but it wasn’t available on Netflix. But when I checked the streaming options on Amazon, I came across something even better. For the bargain of $3.99, I was able to not only replace my copy of <i>Universal Soldier: The Return</i>, but also add <i>Knock Off</i>, <i>The Hard Corps</i>, and <i>Second in Command</i>&nbsp;to my Van Damme collection. The set is laughingly subtitled “Hollywood Hits,” which is funny since <i>The Return</i>&nbsp;and <i>Knock Off</i>&nbsp;combined to make $20 million, and the other two movies weren’t even released in theaters. So after a bit of a hassle, I was able to re-watch <i>Universal Soldier: The Return</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Sadly, that’s where anything remotely interesting ends. This movie is bad, and it’s barely bad enough to get a few laughs out of. The story is basically <i>2001</i>&nbsp;for dummies. SETH, a supercomputer in charge of the Universal Soldier program, goes rogue and plans on taking over the world. Van Damme, a former Universal Soldier, or UniSol, must save the day. The specifics of how to stop SETH make very little sense. There’s something about overheating the computer or not overheating it; it’s hard to tell, and it doesn’t matter. The story is just there to justify an army of UniSols trying to kill Van Damme. Oh, and, of course, Van Damme must save his daughter, even though for most of the movie it seems like he’s forgotten she exists.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The action should be the saving grace of a movie like this, but it’s incredibly bland. A bunch of guns are shot and stuff blows up, all set to late 90s heavy metal music. It almost feels like stock footage used for any number of straight to DVD action movies from this period. Van Damme’s scenes should make things more interesting, but he’s on autopilot in this one. There are the required roundhouse kicks, but he mainly just runs around looking confused. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The boring action wouldn’t be that bad if some obvious character work had been explored. For instance, the UniSol program takes dead soldiers and reanimates them into controlled killing machines. I can’t remember what happened in the last film that allowed Van Damme to return to normal, but that is easily the most interesting part of this movie. Is he immortal? How can he have a child? Shouldn’t he be more of a fish out of water since he technically died during the Vietnam War? But all of this is washed over when Van Damme’s love interest asks about the program and just shrugs it off as normal. If someone tells me they are a zombie of the Vietnam War who is able to procreate, I am going to continue that conversation. Anyway, the film would have worked much better had the focus been on Van Damme’s character and his past. Instead, it doesn’t really matter that Van Damme used to be a UniSol. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There are a handful of funny moments that make the film bearable, though. The most blatant one involves the wrestler Goldberg, who from what I can tell plays himself in the movie since he does a few of his signature wrestling moves. Goldberg is used as comic relief throughout the movie to little effect, but one scene has him attempting to jump from a rooftop into the back of a truck. After he jumps, Van Damme moves the truck forward so Goldberg falls to the ground. It’s the “Oh, s***!” that Goldberg blurts out at the last second that makes it funny. By the way, when that is the most memorable and enjoyable scene in the movie, you know things are bad. There are more moments, but they are not worth explaining. Well, maybe that part when a computer gives someone the finger...that was sort of funny and definitely stupid.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is still a Van Damme film, however, which means I actually kind of like it. Even though his English is somehow worse in this than earlier films, the dude can still carry a movie, at least in my eyes. I’ve never been able to explain why I love his movies so much. I just do. Some people like Seagal; some like Norris; I like Van Damme.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So why do I own this? I’m a Van Damme fan. If the price is low enough, I’ll buy any movie the guy has made, which is why I’ve now bought this garbage movie twice. So as I continue this series of reviews, I will return to the Van Damme shelf from time to time to reaffirm my love of his films, good and bad. But next I promise to pull from a shelf that might have a movie I end up getting rid of.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>New(ish) Movie Thoughts</u></b>: Since it takes me so long to finally watch new movies, instead of writing full reviews I’ll start writing short thoughts about recent movies I’ve seen at the end of these articles.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Suicide Squad</i>&nbsp;– This movie had its moments, but overall I thought it was too messy tonally and otherwise. My main issue was with how tame it was. There’s a scene in which Harley Quinn breaks a window to steal something, and the straight-laced commander says, “Seriously? What the hell’s wrong with you people?” To which Harley responds, “We’re bad guys. It’s what we do?” But is it? When I think of a villain, I don’t think of petty theft. It’s like when someone tells you their friend is “crazy” or “hilarious,” and then you meet them, and they only act crazy or funny because people say they are, but you can tell they’re just plain people. That’s what <i>Suicide Squad</i>&nbsp;is: the plain people of the movie world pretending to be different. Did that make sense? Oh well, it did to me.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Lobster</i>&nbsp;– My favorite film of the year so far. It’s definitely the movie that I will praise but not necessarily recommend. The easy way to recommend this (or not recommend it) is to say if you don’t like “weird” movies then skip it. If you like things that are different, check it out. It’s about a world in which you’re turned into an animal if you can’t stay in a relationship. It is insane, interesting, disturbing, hilarious, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Nerve</i>&nbsp;– This is that movie that came and went a month or so ago about a social media dare game gone awry. Surprisingly entertaining and filmed with an internet style that didn’t feel annoying or gimmicky, <i>Nerve</i>&nbsp;is definitely worth checking out. It gets a little too preachy about internet bullying near the end, but there is still a message there that people need to hear as our internet society gets more and more acidic.</span><o:p></o:p></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-12452475911135494522015-12-01T20:31:00.000-06:002015-12-01T20:31:06.586-06:00"Legend" Is Good Because What's Better Than a Tom Hardy Performance? Two Tom Hardy Performances.<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Legend</u></i></b></span></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z83OHSCPFh0/Vl5VG5DWazI/AAAAAAAADpg/mc-TSNesH7o/s1600/ronnie%2Breggie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="322" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z83OHSCPFh0/Vl5VG5DWazI/AAAAAAAADpg/mc-TSNesH7o/s640/ronnie%2Breggie.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Tom Hardy seems to be an actor always looking for a challenge, which is what makes him one of the more interesting actors out there. While most of his impressive performances were physical in their difficulty (<i>Bronson</i>, <i>Warrior</i>,&nbsp;<i>The Dark Knight Returns</i>, <i>Mad Max: Fury Road</i>, the upcoming <i>The Revenant</i>), <i>Legend </i>presents possibly his biggest challenge: playing the real life London gangster twins, Reggie and Ronnie Kray. Hardy's two performances (which end up being impressively different) for each brother elevate what could have been a very forgettable gangster movie.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Legend </i>has been accused of being derivative of other gangster films, but that is not really the case. True, it is about gangsters, and it is told from the perspective of a gangster's wife (Emily Browning, who was hired to apparently look constantly scared and sad), but this is not like other gangster movies because you don't get to see very much gangster activity. Sure, there are the typical violent scenes, and there are plenty of meetings in bars and hotel rooms discussing gangster activity, but you never really get to see exactly what the Krays did to become a "legend." Ronnie, the more unbalanced of the two, talks about being a gangster in nearly every scene he's in, but we don't get to see it.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Instead, <i>Legend </i>focuses more on Reggie's marriage. It's not that the marriage plot isn't interesting; it's just something we've seen so many times before, even if it is based on a true story. So <i>Legend </i>is like <i>portions </i>of other gangster movies because we've definitely seen the gangster's wife struggle with her husband's work. But in films that include that plot, there is also a compelling main plot involving...gangster stuff.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is not to say <i>Legend </i>is a bad film; it's just disappointing because there are great scenes between the brothers that will leave you wishing that was all the movie was about. The relationship between Reggie and Ronnie is much more interesting than Reggie's relationship with his wife. Reggie is trying to be business-like gangster while Ronnie wants all out war. This, again, is not exactly new territory in a film, but to see two Tom Hardys argue and fight about it makes it much more entertaining.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Hardy devotes himself completely to both brothers. Ronnie, at first glance, is the more impressive performance. Ronnie is an openly gay paranoid schizophrenic. There's more to do there in a performance and Hardy makes the most of it. But that performance only truly becomes impressive when you see Hardy as the more controlled (though not that much more) Reggie. Hardy's performance as Reggie is the less flashy, but there's more struggle in it. Reggie cannot figure out what he is or really wants to be, whereas Ronnie seems to have always known he wanted to be a violent gangster. The performances are so impressive because they look better when compared against each other.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Hardy's dual performances make <i>Legend </i>worth watching. In fact, they make it worth watching more than once. Hardy single(or should I say double?)-handedly saves <i>Legend </i>from mediocrity. It's hard not to imagine what might have been, but what is is still pretty great.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><i>Legend </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PXgd4BrtNIw/Vl5VGs8pbYI/AAAAAAAADpc/97SqkemQMU8/s1600/Kurgan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PXgd4BrtNIw/Vl5VGs8pbYI/AAAAAAAADpc/97SqkemQMU8/s200/Kurgan.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><b><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)</span></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><b><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Even though Reggie is the more nuanced performance of the two, Ronnie is my favorite. His upfront dialogue and general awkwardness led to the film's funniest moments.&nbsp;</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is definitely near the top of my favorite Hardy performances, but <i>Bronson </i>is still the best. I'm not sure he'll ever top that.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-29423924330461930272015-11-24T18:30:00.001-06:002015-11-24T18:30:08.103-06:00Aaron Sorkin's "Steve Jobs" Is Elevated by Michael Fassbender...That's at Least Two Too Many Names for a Review Title.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;">Steve Jobs</span></u></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q-BDLouiJF8/VlUAqSaQD5I/AAAAAAAADpI/csQbcXseADI/s1600/jobs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q-BDLouiJF8/VlUAqSaQD5I/AAAAAAAADpI/csQbcXseADI/s640/jobs.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Steve Jobs </i>is very much an Aaron Sorkin movie. It's not just because Sorkin wrote the script; it's because every second of it seems so calculated. Sorkin's scripts are famous for their rapid fire dialogue, and that's great, but sometimes they call attention to themselves because no one has actual conversations like the ones you see in Sorkin material. That's fine, but it can get distracting, especially when a film is pretty much a nonstop conversation.</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Steve Jobs </i>is structured around three launch events in Jobs's career. The film plays out in real time as he deals with a number of relationships: with his daughter (and her mother), Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg), and Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet). The film effortlessly moves from one chaotic confrontation to another, all while painting a complex picture of Jobs's character. It's all very effective and perfectly cast. Fassbender is sure to be nominated for Best Actor (he might even win), and Winslet could sneak in there as well.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So why does it seem like this review is leading up to one big "But..."? Before I get to that, let me make it clear that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and it could possibly be in my top ten at the moment. That written, Sorkin's material just feels too structured. This feels too pretentious to type, but the film calls attention to how perfectly made it is. I was too aware of how much sense it made for flashbacks to be intercut mid-conversation, and how perfectly timed out each conversation was. I suppose it was the real-time factor of it. It came across more like a play than a film. Not that that is a bad thing. And the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is not what you expect when you watch a biography, and that's a good thing, because biographies have become incredibly boring at this point. This film, which focuses on Jobs's tumultuous interactions with those closest to him, shows so much more about who he really was through conversation than any other film could do through a factually accurate timeline.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Beyond the Sorkin-ness of the film, Fassbender elevates the entire film. He doesn't look or sound like Jobs, and that's fine. A performance should not be an impression. He's playing the role as a character, not as a person. That is important because is presenting Jobs's character, not necessarily his actual life. That might seem very troubling, but it is not in this case because Jobs does not need another proper biography after the Kutcher film (which actually isn't that bad), not to mention the documentaries. Fassbender made the role his own rather than try to impersonate Jobs, and the film is that much better for it.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Steve Jobs </i>could easily be called a perfect film, which is not necessarily a good thing. Perfection calls attention to itself at times and takes you out of the experience. That happens at times with <i>Steve Jobs</i>, but it is forgivable because everything about it is so good: the dialogue, the editing, the acting, the pacing. You might be aware you're watching an Aaron Sorkin film the whole time, but that's not a bad thing.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><i>Steve Jobs </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7YVekcEv4SI/VlUAqe6IPkI/AAAAAAAADpE/a6wSbtiVJ-M/s1600/vader.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7YVekcEv4SI/VlUAqe6IPkI/AAAAAAAADpE/a6wSbtiVJ-M/s200/vader.JPG" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-79922339646462144822015-11-19T14:38:00.001-06:002015-11-19T14:44:51.707-06:00"Me and Earl and the Dying Girl" Is Worth Watching If You Consider Yourself a Movie Buff<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">*Note: As awards screeners have shown up, it's time for me to kick my reviews into high gear and cover as many movies as I can before the end of the year. I'll try to write about every single one I see, whether it's been out for a while (as <i>Me and Earl</i>... has) or if it hasn't been released yet (though since I'm a lowly Midwestern critic, so far I've only been sent screeners for movies that have been given at least a limited release). Also, I plan on keeping these a bit short, unless they flat out blow me away.&nbsp;</span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i><u><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: x-large;">Me and Earl and the Dying Girl</span></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><u><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></u></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IWtrcEsJwuc/Vk4zB200dZI/AAAAAAAADos/3V0s8jN86_8/s1600/medg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IWtrcEsJwuc/Vk4zB200dZI/AAAAAAAADos/3V0s8jN86_8/s640/medg.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I didn't watch <i>The Fault in our Stars</i>, but I can't imagine I will like it more than <i>Me and Earl and the Dying Girl</i>, which appears to have roughly the same premise. The title definitely sums up the movie as it is about a narrator, Greg, who spends time with his friend (or "co-worker") Earl and a dying girl. In its own quirky way, this is the story you would expect about an awkward teenager and his encounter with a terminally ill girl. It's not a complete tearjerker or anything, though. In fact, it contains quite a few laughs. What sets this apart is the hobby of Greg and Earl: taking films they love and making crappy versions of them. It's similar to <i>Be Kind Rewind</i>, but Greg and Earl aren't trying to replace these films; they're paying homage/making fun/goofing off. Their gimmick is that they change the names of each film, and then change the story based on that name. For example, <i>A Clockwork Orange </i>becomes <i>A Sockwork Orange</i>, which is basically just a sock puppet version of the film.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The titles get more and less inspired than that, but the movies aren't the focus of the film. They are just window dressing for the main story. For someone like me, who obviously fancies himself a movie buff, that window dressing alone made the film unique and interesting. I spent most of the time looking closely at their movie collection and trying to recognize what movies they were watching. It was interesting just trying to spot all of the references. The film got bonus points from me for all of the Werner Herzog references.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">A movie with so much interest in classic cinema needs to be a bit stylish, as well, and <i>Me and Earl</i>&nbsp;<i>and the Dying Girl </i>does not disappoint there, either. The camerawork, animation, and overall style of the film is all over the place, paying homage to multiple films. It jut makes what could have been a very depressing film turn out to be a surprisingly layered, funny, interesting work.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><b><u><i>Me and Earl and the Dying Girl </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rNDjHxZBFI8/Vk4zB9V9CYI/AAAAAAAADoo/IjBoGjCFUS8/s1600/The-Kurgan-highlander-8779282-510-400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rNDjHxZBFI8/Vk4zB9V9CYI/AAAAAAAADoo/IjBoGjCFUS8/s200/The-Kurgan-highlander-8779282-510-400.jpg" width="200" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"></span>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-40072873066672008522015-11-18T13:59:00.000-06:002015-11-18T13:59:51.981-06:00"The Hunger Games," the Young Adult Franchise That Ended Up Being a Very Dark Treatise on the Effects of War, Comes to Fitting Conclusion.<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><u>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2</u></b></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wWFuyeDOhnk/VkzYOFBV-_I/AAAAAAAADoU/Aov42M8A-tg/s1600/hgmp2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="422" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wWFuyeDOhnk/VkzYOFBV-_I/AAAAAAAADoU/Aov42M8A-tg/s640/hgmp2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Hunger Games</i>&nbsp;series has been a pleasant surprise (both the books and films) because it started out as a knockoff of <i>Battle Royale</i>&nbsp;but ended up becoming a meditation on war and revolution. The final two parts, while too blatant in their message, do not glory in the war, but rather analyze it. The first part was about propaganda, which made it interesting, if a little on the boring side. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) spent the bulk of the film as the symbol of the rebellion, which meant she filmed a bunch of promotional videos for the war, but spent very little time in the actual war. It felt like a cheat, both for the audience and for Katniss. In <i>Part 2</i>, however, Katniss gets involved in real war.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If <i>Part 1</i>&nbsp;was about the effects of propaganda and symbols in war, <i>Part 2</i>&nbsp;is about actual war. An early scene has Katniss arguing with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) about bombing a compound and the collateral damage it could cause. Katniss worries about every death since she had to kill so intimately during the Games, but Gale thinks that even people mopping the floors of a Capitol compound deserve to die. The film actually leaves it up to the viewer who is right as innocent people do die, but positive results ensue. What is notable is the fact that such an issue is brought up at all. In most films, especially young adult films, there are simply good guys and bad guys. In <i>The Hunger Games</i>, it’s more of a gray area. It’s important that a franchise aimed at young people contains such a debate, because war in the real world has collateral damage. But in most popular movies and videogames aimed at young people, there is none.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite <i>Part 2</i>&nbsp;being a meditation on war, it is still an action movie for the most part. Director Francis Lawrence (who has helmed the series since the second film) has an eye for action, and things are kept fresh rather than letting them devolve to nothing but bombings and shootouts. The best sequence of the film is reminiscent of Lawrence’s work on <i>I Am Legend</i>&nbsp;as the heroes spend a tense night in tunnels, fleeing mutated horrors that would have been right at home in <i>Legend</i>&nbsp;(this time the CG is a bit better, though). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">While there is plenty of action, the film keeps focusing on the characters’ reactions to it. Katniss is the reluctant warrior, only fighting because she must. Gale is the bold warrior, willing to do whatever it takes to end it. And Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), newly released after being tortured and brainwashed, is the damaged warrior. Peeta’s condition foreshadows nearly every major character: this rebellion will leave you damaged, but there is hope. Once again, <i>The Hunger Games</i>&nbsp;is a franchise that, for better or worse, does not shy away from the effects of violence and war. The heroes do not celebrate, even when they win.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">As for that “better or worse” part, any film that wants to get big ideas across runs the risk of becoming preachy, and <i>Part 2</i>&nbsp;definitely falls into that trap a few times. The amount of speeches about war and rebellion in this film is staggering. It seems like every five minutes someone is giving a speech to remind us what the movie is about. It makes you want to yell, “I get it! This movie is about war and its consequences!” The film, which is a bit long, probably could have shaved ten minutes off its screen time by nixing a couple of these redundant speeches. Also, just like in <i>Part 1</i>, characters spend too much time watching screens. It’s hard to not feel silly watching a screen featuring characters staring at a screen.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite these minor squabbles, <i>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2</i>&nbsp;is a fitting end to the series (which probably won’t really end and will be expanded upon within a few years). The series truly found its tone and look in the last few films, ditching the glitzy Capitol of the first two films and flooding the last films (quite literally in one scene) in darkness. The colorful world gives way to concrete and despair as the series focuses on war. Hats off to <i>The Hunger Games</i>&nbsp;series. It could have easily been fluff spoon fed to the masses of young fans, but ended up being a surprisingly dark, if not heavy handed, treatise on war and its effect on everyone.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><i>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 </i>receives:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wZqADSmmm5k/VkzYOK28yJI/AAAAAAAADoQ/1wQ4q3m5K-I/s1600/chi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wZqADSmmm5k/VkzYOK28yJI/AAAAAAAADoQ/1wQ4q3m5K-I/s200/chi.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Random Thoughts - SPOILERS</span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I couldn't help but think about Dante and Randall's conversation about the Death Star in <i>Clerks</i>. Turns out Gale and the contractor have the same view of laborers for evil empires...</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I don't know why Gwendolyn Christie is in this film. She has maybe two minutes of screen time.&nbsp;</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The treatment of Philip Seymour Hoffman was handled as deftly as possible. He's reduced to a series of reaction shots here and played up as the silent plotter behind it all. I suppose it works.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-65462802416389247512015-11-17T13:52:00.002-06:002015-11-17T13:53:50.908-06:00Goofy James Bond Is Back in the Uneven, but Still Very Enjoyable, "Spectre."<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: x-large;">Spectre</span></u></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yJDU-9YTPug/VkuE-Y3N0tI/AAAAAAAADn8/TrUYwlPevJ8/s1600/spectre.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yJDU-9YTPug/VkuE-Y3N0tI/AAAAAAAADn8/TrUYwlPevJ8/s640/spectre.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Daniel Craig's tenure as James Bond has been a series of extremes. His initial casting angered many fans while others approved. His four films as Bond have been varied, as well. The critical response to <i>Casino Royale </i>and <i>Skyfall&nbsp;</i>was incredibly high (95% and 93%, respectively, on Rotten Tomatoes) while <i>Quantum of Solace </i>and <i>Spectre </i>saw huge drop-offs (65% and 63%). Fan reactions generally followed the critics, but <i>Spectre </i>is different. The people who dislike <i>Quantum of Solace </i>(I am among this group as I found the story a bit random and the action subpar) hated it for typical reasons regarding plot and action. To be fair, there are plenty of people who dislike <i>Spectre </i>for those very same reasons, but <i>Spectre </i>is different because it marks the first time Craig has portrayed a more traditional Bond; traditional in that he makes more jokes, experiences some physical comedy, drives a car with gadgets, has a special watch, and jokes around with Q.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">A more traditional Bond is probably what a lot of Bond fans have wanted for a while. If so, they will love <i>Spectre </i>above all others. For others (like myself) who don't mind if Bond is more like Jason Bourne than, well, James Bond, then <i>Spectre </i>will be viewed as a lesser entry. While the goofier aspects of <i>Spectre </i>do feel out of place in what has been a super serious franchise as of late (not to mention that this film begins with the ominous, not funny at all, line, "The dead are alive"), it doesn't ruin the film. It just makes it more like a James Bond film, for better or worse. This is actually what Bond should have been the whole time anyway. There are enough Bourne movies to go around, why can't Bond stay on the goofy side? We'll see if the franchise keeps up the goofiness in the next film. Here's hoping they keep it to a <i>Spectre-</i>type minimum and don't go all <i>Moonraker </i>on us just because <i>Star Wars </i>is popular again...</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><i>Spectre</i>, judged by itself, is certainly inconsistent tonally, and it is a bit too long (it is the longest entry in the franchise), but it still contains all the stuff that made <i>Casino Royale </i>and <i>Skyfall </i>great. The action, while bordering on the nonsensical, looks great, and certain sequences, like the opening camerawork in Mexico, the shadowy meeting in the middle, and a brutal fight on a train, work great. The problem with <i>Spectre </i>is that the series has asked you to take it so seriously in the last few films, and now it seems to say, "Nevermind! We're going to have helicopters do barrel rolls! Bond is going to chase SUVs with a plane for some reason! There will be physical comedy now too! Like Bond falling off a building...onto a couch!" Once again, all of this is perfectly fine in previous Bond films. It was just jarring to see it in a Craig-Bond film.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Aside from the inconsistency in general, <i>Spectre </i>is definitely worth watching. Director Sam Mendes has made another great-looking Bond movie, and he knows how to film action. And if <i>Spectre </i>is as silly as Bond gets now that the series is back in traditional Bond mode, then fine. There is something to be said for Bond movies being different by being themselves. Bond trying to be like other modern action stars might make for a better movie in general, but it does not necessarily make for a better Bond movie.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif; font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Spectre</i> receives a:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6CNloAOs9hk/VkuE-W_xD-I/AAAAAAAADn4/HN-JwuIgLrk/s1600/The-Kurgan-highlander-8779282-510-400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6CNloAOs9hk/VkuE-W_xD-I/AAAAAAAADn4/HN-JwuIgLrk/s200/The-Kurgan-highlander-8779282-510-400.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><b><u><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Random Thoughts - Spoilers</span></u></b></div><div><b><u><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">My personal ranking of the last four goes like this: 1. <i>Casino Royale </i>2. <i>Skyfall </i>3. <i>Spectre </i>(and at a distant)4. <i>Quantum of Solace</i>.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The fight with Bautista on the train was great. I love how it came out of nowhere and ended up being the most brutal action scene in the film.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The opening was easily my favorite part of the movie, and not just because of the one-shot gimmick. Bond in the Day of the Dead getup made for a cool visual.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Waltz being Blofeld is a mistake for the franchise, in my opinion. After Dr. Evil, the character simply does not work. Not to mention, it was way too much like the Harrison=Kahn reveal from <i>Star Trek into Darkness</i>. I like Waltz, but I wish they would have made him a unique villain. And did they really need to give him a cat, too?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Speaking of Blofeld, I don't really buy that he was behind everything in the last few movies. I don't need all the Bond movies to connect like that. I prefer them to be one-offs each time.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">All spy movie franchises need to ditch the plot line about spies being irrelevant in the modern world. We get it, surveillance is everywhere now, but we still need individuals to make it all work. Message received, screenwriters! Just have the spies do stuff without having to battle bureaucracy. I've seen this play out in <i>Mission Impossible </i>and the Bourne movies enough already.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">That said, I did like every scene with Ralph Fiennes, but I think they can find something for him to do without turning the plot into old vs. new.</span></div><br /></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-90421176669513421862015-10-06T15:05:00.001-05:002015-10-06T15:05:04.969-05:00"The Martian": The Anti-"Alien"<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>The Martian</u></i></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJXloecT5Ro/VhQpQmWgtBI/AAAAAAAADmw/LpKmR9rOIZk/s1600/martian.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="382" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJXloecT5Ro/VhQpQmWgtBI/AAAAAAAADmw/LpKmR9rOIZk/s640/martian.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Director Ridley Scott’s recent return to sci-fi, <i>Prometheus</i>, was not very well-received (though I really enjoyed it) partially because it did not live up to the expectations created from Scott’s early sci-fi classic, <i>Alien</i>. Scott returns to science fiction again with <i>The Martian</i>, a film that could be called the anti-<i>Alien</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Comparing <i>The Martian</i>to <i>Alien</i> simply because they are both sci-fi films directed by Scott is not fair. But the opening credits and score invite the comparison. The film begins with ominous music very similar to <i>Alien</i> as the title appears and then fades away one piece of a letter at a time, which is the reverse of the title reveal of <i>Alien</i>. That subtle nod lets the viewer know this is not going to be like <i>Alien</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The difference is important to note because Scott’s filmography is filled with dark, ultra-serious movies. It would be easy for Scott to take the novel <i>The Martian</i>is based on, which is actually quite light-hearted despite the serious situation, and turn it into a much darker film. The intro makes it clear that Scott is venturing into new, nearly opposite territory, meaning <i>The Martian</i> is going to be fun, which is not a word typically associated with Ridley Scott.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Martian</i> has a setup that should be devoid of fun, however. Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed dead while his team aborts a Mars mission to return to Earth. It turns out he is still alive and must figure out how to survive on an inhospitable planet, alone, for four years. That alone sounds more like a depressing survival story than a fun movie, but add to it the logical higher-ups at NASA constantly discussing how impossible it will be for him to survive, and it sounds downright miserable. This is why tone is so important in writing and filmmaking. The source material (written by Andy Weir) deserves the most credit, as it is filled with sarcastic humor. Screenwriter Drew Goddard retained that comedy, and Ridley Scott finalized it with a bit of help from a great cast, many of whom are known for comedy. So instead of a depressing slog of a movie, we get a fast-paced space movie in which a funny astronaut solves every problem thrown his way. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The casting of Mark Watney is critical, and Matt Damon is the perfect choice. Watney needs to be someone you want to see saved, and Damon is very likable (despite his recent brushes with controversy in interviews and on <i>Project Greenlight</i>). He is also capable of carrying a film by himself for long stretches of time. Part of this is thanks to the fact that Watney is constantly talking to the NASA cameras tracking everything, which allows Watney’s portions of the film to be more dialogue-heavy than you would think. The other part of that is Damon’s abilities as an actor. This performance might get dismissed later in the year since the film is light-hearted at times, but he is truly impressive with seemingly no effort. But when you consider that he has make you laugh, cry, and care about him in general, all while talking to himself and reacting to typed messages, it becomes much clearer how great a performance this is. The rest of the cast is great and impressive, but this is definitely Matt Damon’s movie.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Performance and tone aside, any film that takes place on Mars needs to look great to work. This is where Ridley Scott truly shines. Say what you will about his less popular films, but Scott’s movies always look amazing. The sets look so intricate and realistic it’s easy to buy into this near-future of manned Mars missions. And Mars, created with a combination of a practical location (the Wadi Rum in Jordan) and CG, looks beautiful. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">All of these elements combine to make <i>The Martian</i> the most exhilarating movie about space exploration in years. In fact, it almost felt like a promotional movie to get people interested in manned Mars missions (and with NASA’s obvious cooperation, I think it’s safe to say they see it that way too). But that doesn’t take away from the film at all. It’s refreshing to see a movie set in a world where space exploration is done for exploration’s sake rather than as a quest to save the world or escape a dead world or (insert depressing plotline here). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is not to say <i>The Martian</i> is just some fun, empty, forgetful experience. Ridley Scott cannot make a film without plenty of thematic elements. The most dominant theme concerns how important a single human life is. The movie spells it out in no uncertain terms that every life is worth saving, and saving one person on a distant planet can unite everyone on this planet. Is this true? No. Of course not. If this were to happen in the real world, there would be an entire subsection of the population that would doubt that there was actually a mission sent to Mars at all. But <i>The Martian</i> is not the real world, which is why it’s a great, fun film. <i>Alien</i> is still the better film, but it’s hard to compete with the feeling you will have after watching <i>The Martian</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><i>The Martian </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IJk3iGAlYjg/VhQpQtLJt9I/AAAAAAAADms/jJ1_GCmBKqQ/s1600/vader.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IJk3iGAlYjg/VhQpQtLJt9I/AAAAAAAADms/jJ1_GCmBKqQ/s200/vader.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)</u></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Hats off to Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain not being too afraid of doing similar projects to accept this role. Chastain's role isn't all that similar to <i>Interstellar</i>, but Damon's is. In fact, <i>Interstellar </i>works as an alternate ending. A kind of "This is what could have happened" warning. &nbsp;</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I loved that they kept the Elrond joke, especially since Sean Bean (Boromir) was in the scene. Speaking of Sean Bean, good for him for not dying in this one.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I'm getting pretty sick of seeing China pandered to in movies, but at least in this one, it was part of the book, and it makes much more sense as they do have a space program. In other movies (like <i>Transformers: Revenge of the Returned Fallen or Whatever</i>) the characters almost randomly end up in China. And the China stuff paid off in this film as we see a Chinese astronaut on the next Ares mission during the credits sequence.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Didn't see this one in 3D, but I can imagine some of it might have looked great. Visually speaking, it was plenty impressive in 2D.&nbsp;</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Finally, the ending is nearly sappy with optimism, but I still liked it. There was a time that maybe the "good" ending would have bothered me, but not anymore. I love darker sci-fi films like <i>Alien</i>, <i>Blade Runner, Interstellar, </i>etc. but sci-fi movies that honestly make me feel good for humanity at the end are so rare that I was okay with it. Plus, I truly wanted Watney to make it, and the tone of the film does not allow for a down ending.</span></div><br />Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-25573321687966133222015-10-02T23:41:00.000-05:002015-10-02T23:41:07.005-05:00"Sicario" Is the Dark, Tense Film the Drug War Deserves.<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><i><u><b>Sicario</b></u></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rbs30QFQBuA/Vg9cBdcm6CI/AAAAAAAADmU/yhxQrFSmTJ4/s1600/sicario.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="358" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rbs30QFQBuA/Vg9cBdcm6CI/AAAAAAAADmU/yhxQrFSmTJ4/s640/sicario.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Director Dennis Villeneuve has recently established himself as a master of tension, mood, and atmosphere. His two most recent films, <i>Prisoners</i> and <i>Enemy</i> set the tone for what to expect from his latest film, <i>Sicario</i>. Villeneuve’s ability to take basic establishing shots of arguably mundane settings and make them foreboding and intense is impressive. It’s a way of creating an effective style without calling too much attention to itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">With <i>Sicario</i>, Villeneuve has the deserts of Mexico and the American southwest to play with. Lengthy establishing shots (renowned director of photography Roger Deakins impresses yet again) paired with a menacing score (by Johann Johannsson) let us know that this film about the drug war is going to be dark, intense, and disturbing. Mood isn’t everything in a film, but it certainly helps draw the viewer in. Working with a script from Taylor Sheridan (best known as an actor from <i>Sons of Anarchy</i>), Villeneuve is able to take what could have been a cookie-cutter action-thriller and make it into something special. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">A movie about the drug war needs to be elevated because this is a story that has been told before, in a way. There have been movies about the drug war in Mexico for decades, but <i>Sicario</i>rises above the rest thanks to Villeneuve’s direction. That is not to say Sheridan’s script is weak. It is not terribly original, but it is interesting thanks to the perspective Sheridan chose.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The story is told from FBI agent Kate Macer’s perspective. Macer (Emily Blunt) is asked to join a joint task force made up of vague government types including Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro. Neither one wants to tell Macer much, so we do not know much. The most Macer, and the audience, is told is that the mission is to shake things up for the cartel and “dramatically overreact.” There is more to it, of course, which is the mystery of the film. The title itself is a bit of a mystery as “sicario” means “hitman” in Spanish, but we are not told who the hitman is. Having the main character be the new member of a group is a standard ploy of screenwriting to give the viewer someone to empathize with, but it is interesting here when you consider that Macer may represent the typical American’s reaction to the drug war. Not to get into spoilers, but Macer’s story arc is much more powerful when you view her as a representation of America in general. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">While the character of Macer may be a bit plain, Blunt is still able to show her impressive range. Even though she plays a successful FBI agent, this is not your typical strong independent female role. Normally, a female character like this would be shown overpowering every man in her way, but <i>Sicario</i> takes a more realistic route. Macer can hold her own in a raid, but in a hand to hand fight with a man who has fifty pounds on her, things do not go so smoothly. While Macer is physically capable of her job, she struggles with the moral implications of her work with the task force. It is a role that requires Blunt to show equal parts strength and weakness, and she is great at both. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Brolin gives a fun performance in his supporting role, providing some much needed comedic relief to an otherwise joyless film. But it’s Del Toro who steals the film. As Alejandro, a mysterious and deadly soldier, he is able to make a menacing character surprisingly sympathetic. Del Toro comes across as the true star of the film. And Macer (and we the audience) are just there to watch him work. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Since this is a film about the drug war, there is a bit of action, as well. Villneuve does not glorify any of the violence, instead making most of the action scenes quick and brutal, showcasing how savage the situation has become. Each “action” scene is an incredibly tense moment that is much more effective than anything you will find in traditional action films of late.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Every positive element of the film is amplified by the style Villeneuve infuses into the film. Perhaps this is giving him too much credit, but mood and atmosphere cannot be undervalued when it comes to films about serious topics. Villeneuve’s style demands your close attention. And your close attention is rewarded with a tense, atmospheric “action” film that will have you contemplating a real world issue. In short, <i>Sicario</i> is what every serious film should be.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Sicario </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EI3cXDY5fx4/Vg9cBUQRLLI/AAAAAAAADmQ/Pi_bwSi57q4/s1600/chig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EI3cXDY5fx4/Vg9cBUQRLLI/AAAAAAAADmQ/Pi_bwSi57q4/s320/chig.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><u>Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)</u></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I really liked the dark ending of the film, with the whole mission being about supporting one cartel to take over the entire drug trade. It's hard to fault Brolin's reasoning, especially when he points out the impossibility of getting Americans to stop using drugs. It's not a nice solution, but maybe it's a realistic one.&nbsp;</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I liked <i>Sicario </i>quite a bit because of my interpretation of Macer's character. By the end of the film, I saw her as representative of America in general because of her inability to bring real change to the situation. When Alejandro visits her at the end to coerce a signature that will legalize all the illegal things they did, he tells her she isn't strong enough for the war. She is not a wolf. So she should move away from it. I feel like that sums up most of America's citizens in regard to the drug war. Most people can't handle the brutality of what's going on, but their drug use or lack of attention allows it to continue. We are not wolves, so rather than do something about it, we "move" out attention elsewhere, hoping someone else fixes it. This interpretation was solidified for me when Macer retrieved her gun, aimed it at Alejandro, but was not able to pull the trigger. She was left on the balcony, powerless. That symbolizes the typical American regarding the drug war. We're above it on the balcony in America, and we have the power to stop it, but we can't pull the trigger. I really wish the film had ended there, rather than ending up at the kids' soccer game in Juarez. The ending makes a powerful point (that was also made in <i>Traffic</i>, by the way), but the theme of the film would have been more evident if the film had ended with Alejandro walking away as a powerless Macer stands, defeated, on the balcony.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">After watching this, it is clear why Villeneuve is directing the next <i>Blade Runner</i>. This film is actually quite similar, stylistically. <i>Blade Runner </i>featured lengthy establishing shots set to a unique score that solidified the mood and atmosphere of the film constantly. I am not officially excited for what I previously thought of as a needless sequel. I know Villeneuve will keep the new <i>Blade Runner </i>just as dark as the original.</div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, hats off to <i>Sicario </i>for that brutal dinner scene at the end. For a second, I thought Alejandro would prove to be sympathetic to the innocent woman and children at the table, but he turned out to be just as brutal as he had been the entire film. He was truly a man on a mission. I have not found Del Toro this interesting in years. Hopefully he keeps this up with his role in the next <i>Star Wars </i>film.</div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-89312391609580267422015-09-29T15:59:00.000-05:002015-09-29T15:59:43.721-05:00Why Watch "Everest"? Because It's There!<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Everest</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FADsT6o07_8/Vgrm-ujeO4I/AAAAAAAADlw/4NOC0DzGObc/s1600/everest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FADsT6o07_8/Vgrm-ujeO4I/AAAAAAAADlw/4NOC0DzGObc/s640/everest.jpg" width="640" /></a></u></i></b></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Every few years disaster strikes on Mount Everest and multiple debates about climbing the tallest mountain in the world begin. The most basic question that is always at the heart of Everest is, “Why?” The film, <i>Everest</i>, directly posits this question as well, and the characters, in unison, shout George Mallory’s famous line: “Because it’s there!” The characters give serious answers afterward, but that line gets to the root of most reasons why people climb and also why the film exists. Everest is there, and such an imposing example of nature will always fascinate climbers and viewers alike. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There is no shortage of disaster stories from Everest’s deadly history, but the 1996 climbing season was possibly the most documented making it the obvious choice for source material. Jon Krakauer’s <i>Into Thin Air</i> is the most famous account of the climb, but <i>Everest</i> went with a more broad scope in an attempt to present more viewpoints of the event. This makes <i>Everest</i> more accessible, but the lack of focus also leads to some characters receiving short shrift. That said, enough character building is done to make the human drama a very effective counterbalance to the visual spectacle of the film. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The draw of <i>Everest</i>is definitely the spectacle, though. Any film about Everest needs to be about the beauty of the deadly mountain and the general experience of climbing it. In that regard, <i>Everest</i> is extremely successful. The shots of the mountain are stunning, but, more importantly, the actors seem to be truly struggling as they make their way higher and higher. The film shows how brutal the climb truly is, even when climbers are paying to be shepherded up the mountain. The climbers are basically dying the last few thousand feet since humans aren’t meant to survive at such altitudes. Director Baltasar Kormákur said in an interview that he’s “fine” with putting actors through “a little bit of pain” and it definitely shows.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It’s important for the film to hammer home the difficulty of the climb to make the major question of the film more pertinent. Why put yourself through this? Why risk your life? This question is doubly relevant when you add in the weather conditions that led to the 1996 disaster. Is it worth losing your life for the glory of reaching the top? <i>Everest</i> does not presume to answer this question, but the characters obviously think that it is very much worth it. It’s important that the film ultimately leaves the answer up to the viewer since it is a real world question that is still relevant, especially since Everest’s deadliest day occurred this past April. The bigger question then becomes about commercial climbing. In other words, should less-experienced climbers be allowed to pay professional guides to get them to the top? Multiple times in the film, money is mentioned, and the guides clearly want to get people to the top so they can stay in business. Would the disaster of 1996 have happened if the guides didn’t feel that pressure to get more people to the top, especially with a journalist in two who was going to write about it? The film’s screenwriters (William Nicholson and Simon Beaufoy) wisely stop short of blatantly demonizing the practice of guided climbing, leaving it ultimately up to the viewer.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The question of <i>Everest</i>then becomes, “Why recreate these terrible events?” That is difficult to answer. Much like any film based on real, tragic events, there is a tricky line that is toed between reverence and exploitation. “Everest” does not come across as exploitative, but there are moments near the end (which did actually happen) that felt too personal to be recreated, much less witnessed by millions of viewers. (This is a slight SPOILER so skip to the next paragraph if you don’t know the true story and don’t want any part of the film spoiled.) Near the end of the film, one of the main characters, Rob Hall (Jason Clarke), has a conversation with his pregnant wife via a walkie-talkie/satellite phone hook-up as he is dying. It felt too personal to read about it in <i>Into Thin Air</i>, and it felt even more personal watching it recreated. The film seems aware of this, however, as there are multiple reaction shots of characters listening in on the interaction. Everyone is crying, and most people watching the film will be crying as well. This moment is so important because this is where the film might lose the audience. It feels a bit too manipulative, but it actually did happen this way. It’s hard to fault a movie for being melodramatic when it’s based on a real moment. The scene proved to be a double-edged sword for me. It made the film much more emotional and powerful than I expected it to be, but it also convinced me that I never wanted to watch it again. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Any emotion created in a scene is also the product of the actors involved. Clarke is great throughout, but he is truly heartbreaking at the end of the film. Keira Knightley, as Hall’s wife, gives an effective performance as well, especially considering that her scenes were just her talking on the phone. The rest of the cast of <i>Everest</i> is equally impressive: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robin Wright, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, Michael Kelly, Sam Worthington, and Emily Watson. Brolin is given the meatiest role as Beck Weathers, a man whose experiences could have been a movie on its own. The rest have their moments, but the only weak point of the film is that some of the cast is underutilized, specifically Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal portrays Scott Fischer, who was known as kind of a rock star mountain climber. This reputation leads to a slightly strange performance as Fischer seems to be constantly drunk and/or angry, but it’s never explained completely. It seems that once Gyllenhaal was cast, the screenwriters wanted to beef up the role, but couldn’t devote enough time to create a fully fleshed out character. That said, Gyllenhaal brings enough charisma to the role to justify his appearance; you’re just left wanting more. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If anything, the main issue with <i>Everest</i> is that you’re left wanting more. It’s a true story with so many characters it’s impossible to feel like the full story has been told in two hours. Thankfully, there are multiple books and articles that delve deeply into the individual experiences. So <i>Everest</i>is more of a snapshot of Everest and all the human drama that comes with it. It is a very effective film that makes you appreciate (and question) the struggle people go through to achieve their dreams. As a short glimpse into the world of commercial climbing and the tragedy it can bring, <i>Everest</i> works on every important level. It won’t (and can’t) answer the question of why people climb Everest, but it does present a fascinating example of people who took up the challenge and paid the ultimate price.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Everest </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vhoL9nF2xAI/Vgrm-m45gkI/AAAAAAAADls/j0u_L1XFhtA/s1600/chig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="127" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vhoL9nF2xAI/Vgrm-m45gkI/AAAAAAAADls/j0u_L1XFhtA/s200/chig.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600538336385787308.post-19001214217939390372015-09-23T21:52:00.003-05:002015-09-23T21:52:37.402-05:00The Plot of "Black Mass" Has Been Told Before ("The Departed"), but This Time, Johnny Depp Is in It, and He Isn't Playing Jack Sparrow, but He Does Resemble a Vampire...<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><i><u>Black Mass</u></i></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uwJ4KQjo6k8/VgNlK1Ic8SI/AAAAAAAADlU/kyGIVcb9YeA/s1600/depp%2Bbulger%2Bvampire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uwJ4KQjo6k8/VgNlK1Ic8SI/AAAAAAAADlU/kyGIVcb9YeA/s640/depp%2Bbulger%2Bvampire.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Gangster movies have tended to glorify (intentionally or not) their subjects since the creation of the genre, but it is rare when there is a film that actively tries to make you hate the gangster. In the rare film in which the gangster is truly the antagonist, it is the law enforcement agent(s) that then get glorified (Brian De Palma’s <i>The Untouchables</i>&nbsp;comes to mind). <i>Black Mass</i>&nbsp;goes the extra mile making both the gangster and the main FBI agent terrible people. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Black Mass</i>&nbsp;is based on the true story of Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger (Johnny Depp) and an FBI agent, John Connelly (Joel Edgerton), who formed an unholy alliance with him. The true story is extremely complicated, mainly because nearly everyone involved is still alive, and nearly all of the gangsters have testified against each other. It is hard to tell who is being honest in reality, which adds an extra layer of confusion to the film. But <i>Black Mass</i>&nbsp;is a movie, not a historical document. While there will be detractors who bemoan it as pure “fantasy” (as former Bulger confidante Kevin Weeks labeled it), it’s hard to deny that director Scott Cooper has crafted a dark, atmospheric gangster film that features Depp’s most interesting performance in years.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Depp is the true draw with this film because it marks a return of sorts for the actor. After a serious of bombs intermingled with increasingly boring Jack Sparrow joints, Depp returns looking just as crazy but definitely changing things up a bit with a truly effective performance. Depp, who looks nothing like Bulger in reality (though at this point, it’s hard to tell what Depp’s natural look is), features white blond hair receding into a slicked back helmet, piercing blue contact lenses, and a dead front tooth. The appearance is so jarring that it’s distracting at worst, menacing at best. At times, Depp would not have looked out of place in a vampire film. Oddly enough, it works for the film. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Black Mass</i>&nbsp;is just as much Joel Edgerton’s film as it is Depp’s. In fact, the focus is arguably more on Edgerton’s Connelly character than on Bulger. This actually makes the film more interesting as Connelly is the more complex character. Bulger is not very complicated; it is painfully clear that he is a terrible person, and he is okay with that. Connelly, on the other hand, is pretty awful, morally speaking, but appears to be a bit delusional about it. You get the sense that he truly believes he is doing a good deed by protecting Bulger. Depp is the draw that gets you to the movie, but Edgerton anchors the film. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The supporting cast is nothing short of amazing, featuring the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch, Rory Cochrane, Jesse Plemons, Dakota Johnson, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Scott, Corey Stoll, Julianne Nicholson, W. Earl Brown. They each have their moments, making this one of the most impressive casts of the year.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Director Scott Cooper (<i>Crazy Heart</i>, <i>Out of the Furnace</i>) takes a close up approach that gives the film a more intimate, grimy feel that fits with the time setting. That setting is what also makes <i>Black Mass</i>&nbsp;unique. Bulger comes across as the least glamorous gangster of all time, which adds to the character. He seems to simply enjoy the things he does. The money is inconsequential. In fact, Connelly seems to be enjoying the money more than Bulger.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Gangsters, crooked cops, murder, etc. is familiar territory, though, even if much of the approach is unique. It doesn’t help that Bulger’s story was the inspiration for Martin Scorsese’s <i>The Departed</i>, making the plot something many viewers have literally seen before. Some might be exhausted by this particular story even if it has not technically been told yet. If that is the case, <i>Black Mass</i>&nbsp;might not be unique enough to garner your interest. But if you are always up for a gangster movie (like me), and you yearn for another great performance from Johnny Depp (like me again) then you will find plenty to keep you interested in <i>Black Mass</i>. Just don’t expect to end up rooting for the bad guys, because this time, they’re actually bad.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b><u><i>Black Mass </i>receives a:</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-62nJUzm6IWM/VgNlK1es3MI/AAAAAAAADlQ/gS-sGsOgc0Y/s1600/chi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-62nJUzm6IWM/VgNlK1es3MI/AAAAAAAADlQ/gS-sGsOgc0Y/s200/chi.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>Eric Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07325031498485192373noreply@blogger.com0